Is this what people mean when they talk about the "process state"? Thinking you can secure borders via a bureaucratic fix rather than doing anything physical.
"Starmer says government will introduce digital IDs to ensure Britain’s ‘borders are more secure’"
National Statistics: UK population rose by 750,000 last year to 69.3 million, almost all due to migration. They also say the population in 2023 rose by 228,000 more than previously thought, to give a total of an 890,000 annual increase that year.
Is this what people mean when they talk about the "process state"? Thinking you can secure borders via a bureaucratic fix rather than doing anything physical.
"Starmer says government will introduce digital IDs to ensure Britain’s ‘borders are more secure’"
Yes, people like Starmer and those in the Civil Service believe that they can stop criminality with new laws, rather than just enforcing existing ones with deportations for illegals and jail time for business owners who use illegal workers.
They would be lucky to get to 50 seats with that in a General Election, as the other 73% voters range from hate them to ******* hate them. 😆
I think we can now confidently call we have had peak farage and peak reform.
If it weren't for your political foresight being right down there with Leon's, I'd find that reassuring, as I too have a sense that this autumn of flags and vandalism might be the peak for Farage and his little band. It just isn't obvious where voters will go next.
Is this what people mean when they talk about the "process state"? Thinking you can secure borders via a bureaucratic fix rather than doing anything physical.
"Starmer says government will introduce digital IDs to ensure Britain’s ‘borders are more secure’"
Yes, I was right. The Conservatie candidate got 45 first preferences in Tainnand Easter Ross - that's just under 2% of the first preference votes cast. (Lib Dem 38%, Ind 28%, SNP 14%, RefUK 12% and the Greens 3%)
That's a really poor performance in a Highland farming area. OK, it's Scottish local politics, but even so.....
Outlining the reasons for his decision, the chief magistrate said: "I find that these proceedings were not instituted in the correct form, lacking the necessary DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions) and AG (Attorney General) consent within the six-month statutory time limit.
National Statistics: UK population rose by 750,000 last year to 69.3 million, almost all due to migration. They also say the population in 2023 rose by 228,000 more than previously thought, to give a total of an 890,000 annual increase that year.
We did not add half a million houses per year in either of those two years, or anything like it, so far from addressing our housing issues we're going further backwards in having a shortage.
Outlining the reasons for his decision, the chief magistrate said: "I find that these proceedings were not instituted in the correct form, lacking the necessary DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions) and AG (Attorney General) consent within the six-month statutory time limit.
Is this what people mean when they talk about the "process state"? Thinking you can secure borders via a bureaucratic fix rather than doing anything physical.
"Starmer says government will introduce digital IDs to ensure Britain’s ‘borders are more secure’"
Yes, people like Starmer and those in the Civil Service believe that they can stop criminality with new laws, rather than just enforcing existing ones with deportations for illegals and jail time for business owners who use illegal workers.
We have 650 folk picked off the street at random who need to be kept busy with lawmaking. Compared to which actually getting stuck in and ensuring things are managed well is hard and unglamorous work, and difficult for politicians with little direct executive power
Is this what people mean when they talk about the "process state"? Thinking you can secure borders via a bureaucratic fix rather than doing anything physical.
"Starmer says government will introduce digital IDs to ensure Britain’s ‘borders are more secure’"
Off-topic why can't they spell his name correctly in court documents? A colleague said that in the Netherlands they made the effort including any accents in names but in the UK their childrens' birth certificates have a garbled anglicization of the surname
Oh FFS. You do realise you have just added another 18 months to the ID scheme rollout, while committees are set up to ponder the problems of long names, short names, foreign names, accented names, and gendered surnames. Not to mention different languages with different alphabets, Владимир Путин for example. Only closet racists and imperialists would demand your Gujarati grandmother anglicise her name.
A more subtle problem is that we do not really have official names in this country. You can call yourself what you like (subject to fraud, copyright and trademark rules) with no need for deed poll. That will change if there is to be a central register.
A quick look suggests it's currently the 10th most popular petition ever...
I make it 9th, which is somewhat remarkable given the others are:
- 3: Brexit related petitions - 3: Pointless calls for an early general election - 1: Stop Trump state visit (first time round) - 1: End child food poverty
So there's been very, very few similarly popular petitions on actual points of policy. And that's in less than 24 hours.
A quick look suggests it's currently the 10th most popular petition ever...
I make it 9th, which is somewhat remarkable given the others are:
- 3: Brexit related petitions - 3: Pointless calls for an early general election - 1: Stop Trump state visit (first time round) - 1: End child food poverty
So there's been very, very few similarly popular petitions on actual points of policy. And that's in less than 24 hours.
Indeed. I just signed, having followed the link from PB. A lot of folk won't have heard about it yet, and comparing the first day's tally with how other petitions finished after six months up isn't going to tell us much
Yep and regardless of how many end up signing, it's symptomatic of this being an issue where there is a significant minority that has strong views against it. And the opposition cuts across the traditional political spectrum to some extent.
It makes it quite a brave move politically for something that will likely end up bogged down in consultation, Parliament and development for most or all of Starmer's time in office.
As Our Generals and Admirals Fly Home, Our Adversaries Watch and Wait
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/hegseth-quantico-meeting-generals-admirals When I saw the news that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had ordered all U.S. military flag officers (generals and admirals) to gather at the Marine base in Quantico, Virginia, next week along with their senior enlisted advisors, my first response was disbelief. Not disbelief that the secretary of defense might want to deliver a strong message to the senior leaders of the force, but disbelief at the method.
In my forty years in uniform, I never saw anything like it. While senior leaders have been recalled to Washington to meet with the secretary of defense during all our wars, never once did a secretary summon all of the hundreds of one- to four-stars from each of the services, plus their top enlisted counterparts, from every corner of the globe to a single auditorium. Not during the Cold War, not during Desert Storm, not during the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not Rumsfeld, not Gates, not Panetta, not Mattis, not Austin.
They likely didn’t do it because it is disruptive. It is expensive. And it is unnecessary.
Even more remarkable, no one seems to know the reason for the meeting or what Secretary Hegseth intends to say. Normally, even when classified issues are in play, senior leaders have at least a broad sense of the agenda at a meeting of general officers and flag officers (GOFOs) and their senior enlisted advisors. Here, nothing. So, as you might imagine, speculation is running rampant...
They would be lucky to get to 50 seats with that in a General Election, as the other 73% voters range from hate them to ******* hate them. 😆
I think we can now confidently call we have had peak farage and peak reform.
I have seen peak Reform predicted quite a lot on here over the past 12 months.
I don’t think we’re anywhere near Peak Reform yet. This time next year - maybe. But it is hard to see a scenario where they won’t get significant momentum from the local/Welsh/Scottish results in 2026.
I guess I'm in a small minority on here as I'm broadly in favour of digital ID. Assuming it's done properly (yes, I know) it could both save money and reduce everyday bureaucracy for people, like me, who are sick and tired of having to prove who I am for everyday tasks like opening a new bank/savings account, or even mundane stuff such as applying for a residents' parking permit. I'm pretty fed up with all the hoops that need to be gone through to get basic stuff done, and a one-stop shop would be useful.
As for the state surveillance argument. Well, firstly, I'm not paranoid. And, more importantly, the amount of information held on me by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix (who seem to know everything I watch on their platform), my banks (who even recognise my face on my phone) and so on is already vast, and I'm not sure I trust these private companies any more than I trust the government.
The difference being that you could, like many people, choose not to use social media or put your personal data out there. You have chosen to make that data available, presumably after assessing the net value in doing so.
There would not be a choice with Digital ID.
Moreover private companies are limited by law in what they can do with your data. The same will not necessarily apply to any future Government.
I do not trust the Government (any Government) to either keep my data safe nor use it wisely or fairly.
The Government already has your data
And they are already losing it and abusing it. I see no argument for increasing the amount they can hold on me. Indeed I would like to see it go the other way with real restrictions on what they can collect and how they can use it.
The point about digital ID is that it sets the protocols for how data is handled and exchanged. Currently there are no effective controls. As for the rather tired idea that the elderly are too dim to handle the technology- which is nonsense- when the Estonians initiated their systems, under the so-called "tiger leap", anyone who wanted help could go to their local library and they could ask. Essentially everyone in Estonia uses the systems, and instead of calling your doctor at 8am to get an appointment, you can actually email, but to make an appointment, r if needed to cancel, and your appointment is immediately given to those waiting. You can deal with the tax authorities in real time- I am still waiting to get an appointment to discuss my position with the HMRC (I want to PAY some tax) after over 10 months. UK public administration can no longer function with paper based systems from a century ago. It is not whether digital services should be offered, it is how and how securely.
Incidentally, just been reading the BBC 'what we know' section on ID cards. Apparently, it'll be on people's phones.
I despise smartphones, and don't have one. At least, not yet. Maybe I'll end up being forced to get one thanks to this genius move.
From what Nandy is saying on the radio now it looks like a central gov database where everyone is on (I guess if it’s like here then you can go into gov services online through it and make payments, change details etc etc in one simple place) and it would list their status confirming they could work (maybe a photo and social security number or whatever you call it would make sense).
An employer can log in and check you are real and allowed to be here.
You can have a version of it on your mobile but she is saying that it won’t be compulsory to have.
That’s the general gist I got.
How is this any different from having an NI number?
I guess I'm in a small minority on here as I'm broadly in favour of digital ID. Assuming it's done properly (yes, I know) it could both save money and reduce everyday bureaucracy for people, like me, who are sick and tired of having to prove who I am for everyday tasks like opening a new bank/savings account, or even mundane stuff such as applying for a residents' parking permit. I'm pretty fed up with all the hoops that need to be gone through to get basic stuff done, and a one-stop shop would be useful.
As for the state surveillance argument. Well, firstly, I'm not paranoid. And, more importantly, the amount of information held on me by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix (who seem to know everything I watch on their platform), my banks (who even recognise my face on my phone) and so on is already vast, and I'm not sure I trust these private companies any more than I trust the government.
The difference being that you could, like many people, choose not to use social media or put your personal data out there. You have chosen to make that data available, presumably after assessing the net value in doing so.
There would not be a choice with Digital ID.
Moreover private companies are limited by law in what they can do with your data. The same will not necessarily apply to any future Government.
I do not trust the Government (any Government) to either keep my data safe nor use it wisely or fairly.
Fair points. But firstly, yes, you could avoid social media (as I do, apart from PB), but I don't think it's realistic to avoid completely all the companies I mentioned in my post unless you are a hermit who lives on cash under the mattress.
Secondly, while private companies are indeed limited by law, I'm not persuaded that they can be trusted not to ignore their legal obligations.
I trust them more than any Government as at least they know there are legal consequences if they get caught.
And this is not just hyothetical. Look at the massive abuses of the RIPA laws under Blair.
I don't think a large US company run by a multibillionaire who could give Lex Luthor a run for his money in terms of 'dreams' and with strong connections to the US government particularly cares about 'legal consequences' in the UK.
Nor are they likely to be having a direct effect upon me in the UK. The UK Government is. They are in a position to directly abuse the information they collect on us and, more to the point, have a record of doing so which goes far beyond just targeting us with adverts.
Oh, I agree about the UK government. I don't agree with you first sentence - these guys could have a very direct effect upon people over here, and they could directly abuse the information thy collect.
Say, for instance, they get hold of a genetic database, and a loose correlation is discovered between a certain combination of genes and a disease, and you exhibit those genes. They then sell this information to insurers, who make it much more expensive for you to get insured, or stop you getting insurance at all. You have not given permission for your information to be used in that way, nor for them to sell their interpretation of it to the insurers. And you will never know about it, and cannot challenge it.
This, and many other scenarios, are perfectly feasible.
The point being at present it would be illegal for a UK company to do that and I am not likely to go looking for insurance in the US. On the other hand the UK government could quite happily collect and store my data without my permission or knowledge and use it for whatever the hell they wanted.
There is nothing new under the sun in this. Back in 2007 I was a consultee on the Nuffield Council on Bioethics consultation on the collection, retention and use of bioinformation by the Government and its agencies. Even then it was obvious that databases were open to abuse and were being abused and that there was disproportionate targeting of specific sections of society - notably ethnic minorities who were vastly overrepresented on the National DNA database. I do not trust in ay way that the situation has improved.
"Hackers say they have stolen the pictures, names and addresses of around 8,000 children from the Kido nursery chain.
The gang of cyber criminals is using the highly sensitive information to demand a ransom from the company, which has 18 sites in and around London, with more in the US and India.
The criminals say they also have information about the children's parents and carers as well as safeguarding notes.
They claim to have contacted some parents by phone as part of their extortion tactics."
Incidentally, just been reading the BBC 'what we know' section on ID cards. Apparently, it'll be on people's phones.
I despise smartphones, and don't have one. At least, not yet. Maybe I'll end up being forced to get one thanks to this genius move.
From what Nandy is saying on the radio now it looks like a central gov database where everyone is on (I guess if it’s like here then you can go into gov services online through it and make payments, change details etc etc in one simple place) and it would list their status confirming they could work (maybe a photo and social security number or whatever you call it would make sense).
An employer can log in and check you are real and allowed to be here.
You can have a version of it on your mobile but she is saying that it won’t be compulsory to have.
That’s the general gist I got.
How is this any different from having an NI number?
NI number != proof of right to work in the UK.
We already have proof of right to work though in this country, which decent employers are already quite familiar with and crooks are quite prepared to ignore.
Incidentally, just been reading the BBC 'what we know' section on ID cards. Apparently, it'll be on people's phones.
I despise smartphones, and don't have one. At least, not yet. Maybe I'll end up being forced to get one thanks to this genius move.
From what Nandy is saying on the radio now it looks like a central gov database where everyone is on (I guess if it’s like here then you can go into gov services online through it and make payments, change details etc etc in one simple place) and it would list their status confirming they could work (maybe a photo and social security number or whatever you call it would make sense).
An employer can log in and check you are real and allowed to be here.
You can have a version of it on your mobile but she is saying that it won’t be compulsory to have.
That’s the general gist I got.
How is this any different from having an NI number?
Apparently, it will be linked to a photo ID too. But given Nandy didn’t have a clue what the hell the policy was this morning (clearly been sent out like a lamb to the slaughter, don’t quite know how she’d managed to draw the short straw on that), I’d take anything she said with a huge shovel of salt.
David Blunkett on World At One arguing that the ID card proposals don't go far enough, which kind of makes sense if you're a supporter of them. They're not going to be used for the NHS and welfare according to reports.
Off-topic why can't they spell his name correctly in court documents? A colleague said that in the Netherlands they made the effort including any accents in names but in the UK their childrens' birth certificates have a garbled anglicization of the surname
Oh FFS. You do realise you have just added another 18 months to the ID scheme rollout, while committees are set up to ponder the problems of long names, short names, foreign names, accented names, and gendered surnames. Not to mention different languages with different alphabets, Владимир Путин for example. Only closet racists and imperialists would demand your Gujarati grandmother anglicise her name.
A more subtle problem is that we do not really have official names in this country. You can call yourself what you like (subject to fraud, copyright and trademark rules) with no need for deed poll. That will change if there is to be a central register.
The sub-project to cover Tommy Lots of Names, alone, will cost billions
David Blunkett on World At One arguing that the ID card proposals don't go far enough, which kind of makes sense if you're a supporter of them. They're not going to be used for the NHS and welfare according to reports.
This is the crux of the problem, for them to be really useful you have to go all in on them, but doing so is exactly what privacy campaigners argue is the most dangerous thing.
"At one time he was known as "the fastest white man on the planet", running the 100m in 10.2 seconds twice during 1967. In his first 10.2-second race he beat O. J. Simpson, who was then an aspiring athlete."
David Blunkett on World At One arguing that the ID card proposals don't go far enough, which kind of makes sense if you're a supporter of them. They're not going to be used for the NHS and welfare according to reports.
If anyone is reading, they should also be sufficient to bet with an online bookies, please!
I guess I'm in a small minority on here as I'm broadly in favour of digital ID. Assuming it's done properly (yes, I know) it could both save money and reduce everyday bureaucracy for people, like me, who are sick and tired of having to prove who I am for everyday tasks like opening a new bank/savings account, or even mundane stuff such as applying for a residents' parking permit. I'm pretty fed up with all the hoops that need to be gone through to get basic stuff done, and a one-stop shop would be useful.
As for the state surveillance argument. Well, firstly, I'm not paranoid. And, more importantly, the amount of information held on me by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix (who seem to know everything I watch on their platform), my banks (who even recognise my face on my phone) and so on is already vast, and I'm not sure I trust these private companies any more than I trust the government.
The difference being that you could, like many people, choose not to use social media or put your personal data out there. You have chosen to make that data available, presumably after assessing the net value in doing so.
There would not be a choice with Digital ID.
Moreover private companies are limited by law in what they can do with your data. The same will not necessarily apply to any future Government.
I do not trust the Government (any Government) to either keep my data safe nor use it wisely or fairly.
Fair points. But firstly, yes, you could avoid social media (as I do, apart from PB), but I don't think it's realistic to avoid completely all the companies I mentioned in my post unless you are a hermit who lives on cash under the mattress.
Secondly, while private companies are indeed limited by law, I'm not persuaded that they can be trusted not to ignore their legal obligations.
I trust them more than any Government as at least they know there are legal consequences if they get caught.
And this is not just hyothetical. Look at the massive abuses of the RIPA laws under Blair.
I don't think a large US company run by a multibillionaire who could give Lex Luthor a run for his money in terms of 'dreams' and with strong connections to the US government particularly cares about 'legal consequences' in the UK.
Nor are they likely to be having a direct effect upon me in the UK. The UK Government is. They are in a position to directly abuse the information they collect on us and, more to the point, have a record of doing so which goes far beyond just targeting us with adverts.
Oh, I agree about the UK government. I don't agree with you first sentence - these guys could have a very direct effect upon people over here, and they could directly abuse the information thy collect.
Say, for instance, they get hold of a genetic database, and a loose correlation is discovered between a certain combination of genes and a disease, and you exhibit those genes. They then sell this information to insurers, who make it much more expensive for you to get insured, or stop you getting insurance at all. You have not given permission for your information to be used in that way, nor for them to sell their interpretation of it to the insurers. And you will never know about it, and cannot challenge it.
This, and many other scenarios, are perfectly feasible.
The point being at present it would be illegal for a UK company to do that and I am not likely to go looking for insurance in the US. On the other hand the UK government could quite happily collect and store my data without my permission or knowledge and use it for whatever the hell they wanted.
There is nothing new under the sun in this. Back in 2007 I was a consultee on the Nuffield Council on Bioethics consultation on the collection, retention and use of bioinformation by the Government and its agencies. Even then it was obvious that databases were open to abuse and were being abused and that there was disproportionate targeting of specific sections of society - notably ethnic minorities who were vastly overrepresented on the National DNA database. I do not trust in ay way that the situation has improved.
It would be illegal for a UK company to do that. But data has no borders. And a British insurer might hire a foreign-based Risk Analysis company, who then (obviously, unbeknownst (ahem) to their client) uses the services of another company that uses the data they have access to. Unpicking that chain can be very difficult.
The point is that there ae countless ways that data can be abused, especially where data from different sources can be combined to make inferences that are not possible from just one source.
Yes, we need to be careful about trusting the government with our data. But we also need to be very careful about trusting companies with our data - and exceptionally careful about trusting foreign companies.
As Our Generals and Admirals Fly Home, Our Adversaries Watch and Wait
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/hegseth-quantico-meeting-generals-admirals When I saw the news that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had ordered all U.S. military flag officers (generals and admirals) to gather at the Marine base in Quantico, Virginia, next week along with their senior enlisted advisors, my first response was disbelief. Not disbelief that the secretary of defense might want to deliver a strong message to the senior leaders of the force, but disbelief at the method.
In my forty years in uniform, I never saw anything like it. While senior leaders have been recalled to Washington to meet with the secretary of defense during all our wars, never once did a secretary summon all of the hundreds of one- to four-stars from each of the services, plus their top enlisted counterparts, from every corner of the globe to a single auditorium. Not during the Cold War, not during Desert Storm, not during the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not Rumsfeld, not Gates, not Panetta, not Mattis, not Austin.
They likely didn’t do it because it is disruptive. It is expensive. And it is unnecessary.
Even more remarkable, no one seems to know the reason for the meeting or what Secretary Hegseth intends to say. Normally, even when classified issues are in play, senior leaders have at least a broad sense of the agenda at a meeting of general officers and flag officers (GOFOs) and their senior enlisted advisors. Here, nothing. So, as you might imagine, speculation is running rampant...
I’m going for the renaming of the My Lai Massacre to the Battle of My Lai with medals for bravery issued to combatants.
I guess I'm in a small minority on here as I'm broadly in favour of digital ID. Assuming it's done properly (yes, I know) it could both save money and reduce everyday bureaucracy for people, like me, who are sick and tired of having to prove who I am for everyday tasks like opening a new bank/savings account, or even mundane stuff such as applying for a residents' parking permit. I'm pretty fed up with all the hoops that need to be gone through to get basic stuff done, and a one-stop shop would be useful.
As for the state surveillance argument. Well, firstly, I'm not paranoid. And, more importantly, the amount of information held on me by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix (who seem to know everything I watch on their platform), my banks (who even recognise my face on my phone) and so on is already vast, and I'm not sure I trust these private companies any more than I trust the government.
The difference being that you could, like many people, choose not to use social media or put your personal data out there. You have chosen to make that data available, presumably after assessing the net value in doing so.
There would not be a choice with Digital ID.
Moreover private companies are limited by law in what they can do with your data. The same will not necessarily apply to any future Government.
I do not trust the Government (any Government) to either keep my data safe nor use it wisely or fairly.
The Government already has your data
And they are already losing it and abusing it. I see no argument for increasing the amount they can hold on me. Indeed I would like to see it go the other way with real restrictions on what they can collect and how they can use it.
The point about digital ID is that it sets the protocols for how data is handled and exchanged. Currently there are no effective controls. As for the rather tired idea that the elderly are too dim to handle the technology- which is nonsense- when the Estonians initiated their systems, under the so-called "tiger leap", anyone who wanted help could go to their local library and they could ask. Essentially everyone in Estonia uses the systems, and instead of calling your doctor at 8am to get an appointment, you can actually email, but to make an appointment, r if needed to cancel, and your appointment is immediately given to those waiting. You can deal with the tax authorities in real time- I am still waiting to get an appointment to discuss my position with the HMRC (I want to PAY some tax) after over 10 months. UK public administration can no longer function with paper based systems from a century ago. It is not whether digital services should be offered, it is how and how securely.
If you think digital ID will in any way improve how HMRC responds to you then I have a bridge to sell you. It is not being able to identify yourself that makes our state systems shit, it is the inherent failure of the systems themselves. I can (and do) go online to make appointments with my GP now. The systems are already available and don't need digital ID to work.
I guess I'm in a small minority on here as I'm broadly in favour of digital ID. Assuming it's done properly (yes, I know) it could both save money and reduce everyday bureaucracy for people, like me, who are sick and tired of having to prove who I am for everyday tasks like opening a new bank/savings account, or even mundane stuff such as applying for a residents' parking permit. I'm pretty fed up with all the hoops that need to be gone through to get basic stuff done, and a one-stop shop would be useful.
As for the state surveillance argument. Well, firstly, I'm not paranoid. And, more importantly, the amount of information held on me by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix (who seem to know everything I watch on their platform), my banks (who even recognise my face on my phone) and so on is already vast, and I'm not sure I trust these private companies any more than I trust the government.
The difference being that you could, like many people, choose not to use social media or put your personal data out there. You have chosen to make that data available, presumably after assessing the net value in doing so.
There would not be a choice with Digital ID.
Moreover private companies are limited by law in what they can do with your data. The same will not necessarily apply to any future Government.
I do not trust the Government (any Government) to either keep my data safe nor use it wisely or fairly.
Fair points. But firstly, yes, you could avoid social media (as I do, apart from PB), but I don't think it's realistic to avoid completely all the companies I mentioned in my post unless you are a hermit who lives on cash under the mattress.
Secondly, while private companies are indeed limited by law, I'm not persuaded that they can be trusted not to ignore their legal obligations.
I trust them more than any Government as at least they know there are legal consequences if they get caught.
And this is not just hyothetical. Look at the massive abuses of the RIPA laws under Blair.
I don't think a large US company run by a multibillionaire who could give Lex Luthor a run for his money in terms of 'dreams' and with strong connections to the US government particularly cares about 'legal consequences' in the UK.
Nor are they likely to be having a direct effect upon me in the UK. The UK Government is. They are in a position to directly abuse the information they collect on us and, more to the point, have a record of doing so which goes far beyond just targeting us with adverts.
Oh, I agree about the UK government. I don't agree with you first sentence - these guys could have a very direct effect upon people over here, and they could directly abuse the information thy collect.
Say, for instance, they get hold of a genetic database, and a loose correlation is discovered between a certain combination of genes and a disease, and you exhibit those genes. They then sell this information to insurers, who make it much more expensive for you to get insured, or stop you getting insurance at all. You have not given permission for your information to be used in that way, nor for them to sell their interpretation of it to the insurers. And you will never know about it, and cannot challenge it.
This, and many other scenarios, are perfectly feasible.
The point being at present it would be illegal for a UK company to do that and I am not likely to go looking for insurance in the US. On the other hand the UK government could quite happily collect and store my data without my permission or knowledge and use it for whatever the hell they wanted.
There is nothing new under the sun in this. Back in 2007 I was a consultee on the Nuffield Council on Bioethics consultation on the collection, retention and use of bioinformation by the Government and its agencies. Even then it was obvious that databases were open to abuse and were being abused and that there was disproportionate targeting of specific sections of society - notably ethnic minorities who were vastly overrepresented on the National DNA database. I do not trust in ay way that the situation has improved.
It would be illegal for a UK company to do that. But data has no borders. And a British insurer might hire a foreign-based Risk Analysis company, who then (obviously, unbeknownst (ahem) to their client) uses the services of another company that uses the data they have access to. Unpicking that chain can be very difficult.
The point is that there ae countless ways that data can be abused, especially where data from different sources can be combined to make inferences that are not possible from just one source.
Yes, we need to be careful about trusting the government with our data. But we also need to be very careful about trusting companies with our data - and exceptionally careful about trusting foreign companies.
See UK Biobank, on paper a very sensible idea to gather medical training data for academics and UK companies....reality of the situation, the whole of China academia / medical companies now has this data.
David Blunkett on World At One arguing that the ID card proposals don't go far enough, which kind of makes sense if you're a supporter of them. They're not going to be used for the NHS and welfare according to reports.
This is the crux of the problem, for them to be really useful you have to go all in on them, but doing so is exactly what privacy campaigners argue is the most dangerous thing.
And the UK compromise will be to build a version that doesn't work, wouldn't do what it should even if it does, cost too much, be unsecure, run by dodgy evil billionaires, before we abandon it as we did HS2.
As Our Generals and Admirals Fly Home, Our Adversaries Watch and Wait
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/hegseth-quantico-meeting-generals-admirals When I saw the news that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had ordered all U.S. military flag officers (generals and admirals) to gather at the Marine base in Quantico, Virginia, next week along with their senior enlisted advisors, my first response was disbelief. Not disbelief that the secretary of defense might want to deliver a strong message to the senior leaders of the force, but disbelief at the method.
In my forty years in uniform, I never saw anything like it. While senior leaders have been recalled to Washington to meet with the secretary of defense during all our wars, never once did a secretary summon all of the hundreds of one- to four-stars from each of the services, plus their top enlisted counterparts, from every corner of the globe to a single auditorium. Not during the Cold War, not during Desert Storm, not during the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not Rumsfeld, not Gates, not Panetta, not Mattis, not Austin.
They likely didn’t do it because it is disruptive. It is expensive. And it is unnecessary.
Even more remarkable, no one seems to know the reason for the meeting or what Secretary Hegseth intends to say. Normally, even when classified issues are in play, senior leaders have at least a broad sense of the agenda at a meeting of general officers and flag officers (GOFOs) and their senior enlisted advisors. Here, nothing. So, as you might imagine, speculation is running rampant...
I’m going for the renaming of the My Lai Massacre to the Battle of My Lai with medals for bravery issued to combatants.
That’d still be less worrying that ‘You’re all off to Taiwan’ or ‘You’re all coming home’, or even ‘We’re currently calling the asteroid “Big Dave”’.
They would be lucky to get to 50 seats with that in a General Election, as the other 73% voters range from hate them to ******* hate them. 😆
I think we can now confidently call we have had peak farage and peak reform.
79% hate Labour, 83% hate the Tories, and 86% hate the Lib Dems, that's the thing.
No, it's not. They might not be first preference, but see the previous post on tactical voting. I'm far from sure Reform could form a coalition with any of them, or that the supporters of any of the parties, including Reform, would want them to. Reform are loved or loathed. That's their schtick.
I guess I'm in a small minority on here as I'm broadly in favour of digital ID. Assuming it's done properly (yes, I know) it could both save money and reduce everyday bureaucracy for people, like me, who are sick and tired of having to prove who I am for everyday tasks like opening a new bank/savings account, or even mundane stuff such as applying for a residents' parking permit. I'm pretty fed up with all the hoops that need to be gone through to get basic stuff done, and a one-stop shop would be useful.
As for the state surveillance argument. Well, firstly, I'm not paranoid. And, more importantly, the amount of information held on me by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix (who seem to know everything I watch on their platform), my banks (who even recognise my face on my phone) and so on is already vast, and I'm not sure I trust these private companies any more than I trust the government.
The difference being that you could, like many people, choose not to use social media or put your personal data out there. You have chosen to make that data available, presumably after assessing the net value in doing so.
There would not be a choice with Digital ID.
Moreover private companies are limited by law in what they can do with your data. The same will not necessarily apply to any future Government.
I do not trust the Government (any Government) to either keep my data safe nor use it wisely or fairly.
Fair points. But firstly, yes, you could avoid social media (as I do, apart from PB), but I don't think it's realistic to avoid completely all the companies I mentioned in my post unless you are a hermit who lives on cash under the mattress.
Secondly, while private companies are indeed limited by law, I'm not persuaded that they can be trusted not to ignore their legal obligations.
I trust them more than any Government as at least they know there are legal consequences if they get caught.
And this is not just hyothetical. Look at the massive abuses of the RIPA laws under Blair.
I don't think a large US company run by a multibillionaire who could give Lex Luthor a run for his money in terms of 'dreams' and with strong connections to the US government particularly cares about 'legal consequences' in the UK.
Nor are they likely to be having a direct effect upon me in the UK. The UK Government is. They are in a position to directly abuse the information they collect on us and, more to the point, have a record of doing so which goes far beyond just targeting us with adverts.
Oh, I agree about the UK government. I don't agree with you first sentence - these guys could have a very direct effect upon people over here, and they could directly abuse the information thy collect.
Say, for instance, they get hold of a genetic database, and a loose correlation is discovered between a certain combination of genes and a disease, and you exhibit those genes. They then sell this information to insurers, who make it much more expensive for you to get insured, or stop you getting insurance at all. You have not given permission for your information to be used in that way, nor for them to sell their interpretation of it to the insurers. And you will never know about it, and cannot challenge it.
This, and many other scenarios, are perfectly feasible.
The point being at present it would be illegal for a UK company to do that and I am not likely to go looking for insurance in the US. On the other hand the UK government could quite happily collect and store my data without my permission or knowledge and use it for whatever the hell they wanted.
There is nothing new under the sun in this. Back in 2007 I was a consultee on the Nuffield Council on Bioethics consultation on the collection, retention and use of bioinformation by the Government and its agencies. Even then it was obvious that databases were open to abuse and were being abused and that there was disproportionate targeting of specific sections of society - notably ethnic minorities who were vastly overrepresented on the National DNA database. I do not trust in ay way that the situation has improved.
It would be illegal for a UK company to do that. But data has no borders. And a British insurer might hire a foreign-based Risk Analysis company, who then (obviously, unbeknownst (ahem) to their client) uses the services of another company that uses the data they have access to. Unpicking that chain can be very difficult.
The point is that there ae countless ways that data can be abused, especially where data from different sources can be combined to make inferences that are not possible from just one source.
Yes, we need to be careful about trusting the government with our data. But we also need to be very careful about trusting companies with our data - and exceptionally careful about trusting foreign companies.
I agree. But once again, the threat of data abuse from our own Government is far more immediate and proven than that from foreign companies.
REMINDER: TEST MATCH RULES ARE NOW IN PLACE FOR THE RYDER CUP
Thankyou for your attention to this message.
So that means you have two sides, one out in the field and one in.
Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out.
When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side thats been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out.
Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in.
There are two men called umpires who stay out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out.
When both sides have been in and all the men have got out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game!
They would be lucky to get to 50 seats with that in a General Election, as the other 73% voters range from hate them to ******* hate them. 😆
I think we can now confidently call we have had peak farage and peak reform.
79% hate Labour, 83% hate the Tories, and 86% hate the Lib Dems, that's the thing.
No, it's not. They might not be first preference, but see the previous post on tactical voting. I'm far from sure Reform could form a coalition with any of them, or that the supporters of any of the parties, including Reform, would want them to. Reform are loved or loathed. That's their schtick.
I would tactically vote Tory to block Reform, if I didn't live in a safe Labour seat!
REMINDER: TEST MATCH RULES ARE NOW IN PLACE FOR THE RYDER CUP
Thankyou for your attention to this message.
It's a mistake to imbue sporting events with great significance in the grand scheme of things but I'm viewing this Ryder Cup as a battle between civilised European values and Trumpite barbarism.
Maybe politicians ought to be asking themselves how they transformed a country in which you almost never had to show ID to do anything [unless you were going abroad from an airport or ferry terminal] into one in which apparently ID cards are needed. You could open a bank account with nothing more than a gas bill until relatively recently IIRC, and society didn't collapse as a result.
I guess I'm in a small minority on here as I'm broadly in favour of digital ID. Assuming it's done properly (yes, I know) it could both save money and reduce everyday bureaucracy for people, like me, who are sick and tired of having to prove who I am for everyday tasks like opening a new bank/savings account, or even mundane stuff such as applying for a residents' parking permit. I'm pretty fed up with all the hoops that need to be gone through to get basic stuff done, and a one-stop shop would be useful.
As for the state surveillance argument. Well, firstly, I'm not paranoid. And, more importantly, the amount of information held on me by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix (who seem to know everything I watch on their platform), my banks (who even recognise my face on my phone) and so on is already vast, and I'm not sure I trust these private companies any more than I trust the government.
The difference being that you could, like many people, choose not to use social media or put your personal data out there. You have chosen to make that data available, presumably after assessing the net value in doing so.
There would not be a choice with Digital ID.
Moreover private companies are limited by law in what they can do with your data. The same will not necessarily apply to any future Government.
I do not trust the Government (any Government) to either keep my data safe nor use it wisely or fairly.
Fair points. But firstly, yes, you could avoid social media (as I do, apart from PB), but I don't think it's realistic to avoid completely all the companies I mentioned in my post unless you are a hermit who lives on cash under the mattress.
Secondly, while private companies are indeed limited by law, I'm not persuaded that they can be trusted not to ignore their legal obligations.
I trust them more than any Government as at least they know there are legal consequences if they get caught.
And this is not just hyothetical. Look at the massive abuses of the RIPA laws under Blair.
I don't think a large US company run by a multibillionaire who could give Lex Luthor a run for his money in terms of 'dreams' and with strong connections to the US government particularly cares about 'legal consequences' in the UK.
Nor are they likely to be having a direct effect upon me in the UK. The UK Government is. They are in a position to directly abuse the information they collect on us and, more to the point, have a record of doing so which goes far beyond just targeting us with adverts.
Oh, I agree about the UK government. I don't agree with you first sentence - these guys could have a very direct effect upon people over here, and they could directly abuse the information thy collect.
Say, for instance, they get hold of a genetic database, and a loose correlation is discovered between a certain combination of genes and a disease, and you exhibit those genes. They then sell this information to insurers, who make it much more expensive for you to get insured, or stop you getting insurance at all. You have not given permission for your information to be used in that way, nor for them to sell their interpretation of it to the insurers. And you will never know about it, and cannot challenge it.
This, and many other scenarios, are perfectly feasible.
The point being at present it would be illegal for a UK company to do that and I am not likely to go looking for insurance in the US. On the other hand the UK government could quite happily collect and store my data without my permission or knowledge and use it for whatever the hell they wanted.
There is nothing new under the sun in this. Back in 2007 I was a consultee on the Nuffield Council on Bioethics consultation on the collection, retention and use of bioinformation by the Government and its agencies. Even then it was obvious that databases were open to abuse and were being abused and that there was disproportionate targeting of specific sections of society - notably ethnic minorities who were vastly overrepresented on the National DNA database. I do not trust in ay way that the situation has improved.
It would be illegal for a UK company to do that. But data has no borders. And a British insurer might hire a foreign-based Risk Analysis company, who then (obviously, unbeknownst (ahem) to their client) uses the services of another company that uses the data they have access to. Unpicking that chain can be very difficult.
The point is that there ae countless ways that data can be abused, especially where data from different sources can be combined to make inferences that are not possible from just one source.
Yes, we need to be careful about trusting the government with our data. But we also need to be very careful about trusting companies with our data - and exceptionally careful about trusting foreign companies.
I agree. But once again, the threat of data abuse from our own Government is far more immediate and proven than that from foreign companies.
I both agree and disagree with that. I agree that data abuse (both accidental and purposeful) from our own government is far more immediate and proven.
But that does not say that what private companies and foreign entities could do - and perhaps are doing - may not be far worse. And at the end of the day, the government does not want scandals and, in extremis, we can vote them out.
These private companies misusing our data - and especially foreign ones? As long as their profit margins look fine, they're happy. And once they have the data, there's little we can do about it.
And remember that Thiel's end view of all of this is very dystopian.
They would be lucky to get to 50 seats with that in a General Election, as the other 73% voters range from hate them to ******* hate them. 😆
I think we can now confidently call we have had peak farage and peak reform.
79% hate Labour, 83% hate the Tories, and 86% hate the Lib Dems, that's the thing.
What does this MRP give you when you feed Lab 33.7% Con 23.7% Reform 14.3% Green 6.7% LibDem 12.2% into it? 😀
When you go to multi party politics under FPTP you go to voting blocks, that’s never going to be block going to polling booth for what they want, but what they don’t want. Can confidently predict now, May 3rd 2029 is the ganging up on Bogey Man Election.
They would be lucky to get to 50 seats with that in a General Election, as the other 73% voters range from hate them to ******* hate them. 😆
I think we can now confidently call we have had peak farage and peak reform.
79% hate Labour, 83% hate the Tories, and 86% hate the Lib Dems, that's the thing.
No, it's not. They might not be first preference, but see the previous post on tactical voting. I'm far from sure Reform could form a coalition with any of them, or that the supporters of any of the parties, including Reform, would want them to. Reform are loved or loathed. That's their schtick.
You might have noticed that even taking tactical voting into account, Reform come first by a country mile., on that earlier poll.
That's because a lot of Conservative voters would tactically vote for Reform over either Labour of the Lib Dems.
REMINDER: TEST MATCH RULES ARE NOW IN PLACE FOR THE RYDER CUP
Thankyou for your attention to this message.
It's a mistake to imbue sporting events with great significance in the grand scheme of things but I'm viewing this Ryder Cup as a battle between civilised European values and Trumpite barbarism.
Which of the US golfers are ‘out’ Trumpers just so I know how many voodoo dolls to make?
It might be difficult for some people to believe but not everyone has spent the last 15 years on social media, signing up for online streaming services, etc, and their level of privacy is still the same as it was pre-internet. So when people say ID cards are fine because they've already given away a lot of information about themselves, they're being incredibly selfish because they're only looking at it from their own point of view.
Its probably about 80-90% of adults have widely shared stuff and 10-20% haven't.
Which group is being more selfish? Both need some consideration.
But I'd also point out that many of the 10-20% who haven't shared stuff, will have shared more than they realise - or had other people share stuff about them...
Sharing stuff voluntarily and being forced to by a state which has the power to take away your liberty are two very different things. You'd hope that intelligent people on a politics forum would understand this important difference.
You're snarky this morning!
Yes, I think even the unintelligent people on a politics forum understands that importance difference. I think it's slightly irrelevant to my point though, which is that it is very hard *not* to give away data online or for others to give away your data. From experience, sometimes you have to jump through rather arcane hoops to prevent giving away your data - and sometimes you have to trust them at their word.
(And BTW, I'm against ID Cards, and even this proposed limited scheme.)
I say it as I see it.
I agree with you on this proposal. Palantir's involvement is deeply sinister and I do not trust government one bit, frankly. No-one looking at its record on cock ups, miscarriages of justice, IT disasters, corrupt contracts, etc etc could be other than mistrustful of both its competence and its motives, regardless of party.
Maybe politicians ought to be asking themselves how they transformed a country in which you almost never had to show ID to do anything [unless you were going abroad from an airport or ferry terminal] into one in which apparently ID cards are needed. You could open a bank account with nothing more than a gas bill until relatively recently IIRC, and society didn't collapse as a result.
The really depressing bit of this is that the problems which all the pointless ID checking stuff portends to solve are not being solved, and indeed seem to be getting worse. It's basically a displacement activity in the "make it look like we are trying to look like we are doing something" category.
Meanwhile, my accountant tells me that an 75 year old trustee of a charity for whom they are doing the accounts has just resigned because he's unable to fulfil the ID requirements the accountant has to impose on them.
One of the big fallacies of modern politics is that laws like this don't really cost anything beyond a little bit of inconvenience; actually they are steadily strangling the country to death.
REMINDER: TEST MATCH RULES ARE NOW IN PLACE FOR THE RYDER CUP
Thankyou for your attention to this message.
It's a mistake to imbue sporting events with great significance in the grand scheme of things but I'm viewing this Ryder Cup as a battle between civilised European values and Trumpite barbarism.
Which of the US golfers are ‘out’ Trumpers just so I know how many voodoo dolls to make?
I'd guess many are but the outest is DeChambeau. He was on stage at Lago for the election victory party.
REMINDER: TEST MATCH RULES ARE NOW IN PLACE FOR THE RYDER CUP
Thankyou for your attention to this message.
It's a mistake to imbue sporting events with great significance in the grand scheme of things but I'm viewing this Ryder Cup as a battle between civilised European values and Trumpite barbarism.
Which of the US golfers are ‘out’ Trumpers just so I know how many voodoo dolls to make?
I'd guess many are but the outest is DeChambeau. He was on stage at Lago for the election victory party.
I’m assuming the big orange cheese himself will muscle in at some point?
You know, given the upfront purpose and the no need to carry, they should never have discontinued NI number cards, then this could have been mooted as merely an overhaul of the NI number card system.
I still have most of my NI number card issued in 1986, it now being brittle, a bit of one end has snapped off. Analogue ID, that is. I also still have a paper driving license - my wife who sent off for one for the change of address just days after me ended up with a photo one.
David Blunkett on World At One arguing that the ID card proposals don't go far enough, which kind of makes sense if you're a supporter of them. They're not going to be used for the NHS and welfare according to reports.
This is the crux of the problem, for them to be really useful you have to go all in on them, but doing so is exactly what privacy campaigners argue is the most dangerous thing.
"Don't go far enough" - what does he want: numbers tattooed on our arms?
This is the man who managed to introduce a form of indefinite internment for some prisoners. For public protection. Well a lot of evil can be done in the name of "public protection". It's the handy go-to for authoritarians of all types.
Maybe politicians ought to be asking themselves how they transformed a country in which you almost never had to show ID to do anything [unless you were going abroad from an airport or ferry terminal] into one in which apparently ID cards are needed. You could open a bank account with nothing more than a gas bill until relatively recently IIRC, and society didn't collapse as a result.
REMINDER: TEST MATCH RULES ARE NOW IN PLACE FOR THE RYDER CUP
Thankyou for your attention to this message.
It's a mistake to imbue sporting events with great significance in the grand scheme of things but I'm viewing this Ryder Cup as a battle between civilised European values and Trumpite barbarism.
Which of the US golfers are ‘out’ Trumpers just so I know how many voodoo dolls to make?
I'd guess many are but the outest is DeChambeau. He was on stage at Lago for the election victory party.
Hopefully Europe give them a good drubbing, guaranteed to eb a lesson in poor sportmanship mind you, yanks have no class.
Maybe politicians ought to be asking themselves how they transformed a country in which you almost never had to show ID to do anything [unless you were going abroad from an airport or ferry terminal] into one in which apparently ID cards are needed. You could open a bank account with nothing more than a gas bill until relatively recently IIRC, and society didn't collapse as a result.
From an outsiders perspective it seems that the big impact of all the anti money laundering rules is that the launderers and drug gangs now have to pay the corporate global banks and accountants to do their laundering rather than smaller banks and local accountants.
If China has cracked sodium ion batteries that would be huge news for renewables. Once produced at volume, they have the potential to be way cheaper than lithium ion.
REMINDER: TEST MATCH RULES ARE NOW IN PLACE FOR THE RYDER CUP
Thankyou for your attention to this message.
It's a mistake to imbue sporting events with great significance in the grand scheme of things but I'm viewing this Ryder Cup as a battle between civilised European values and Trumpite barbarism.
Which of the US golfers are ‘out’ Trumpers just so I know how many voodoo dolls to make?
I'd guess many are but the outest is DeChambeau. He was on stage at Lago for the election victory party.
I’m assuming the big orange cheese himself will muscle in at some point?
They are readying him to come on as a supersub if the US are losing and they need the best golfer in the world to do a perfect few rounds of 18 hole-in-ones.
If China has cracked sodium ion batteries that would be huge news for renewables. Once produced at volume, they have the potential to be way cheaper than lithium ion.
REMINDER: TEST MATCH RULES ARE NOW IN PLACE FOR THE RYDER CUP
Thankyou for your attention to this message.
It's a mistake to imbue sporting events with great significance in the grand scheme of things but I'm viewing this Ryder Cup as a battle between civilised European values and Trumpite barbarism.
Which of the US golfers are ‘out’ Trumpers just so I know how many voodoo dolls to make?
I'd guess many are but the outest is DeChambeau. He was on stage at Lago for the election victory party.
I’m assuming the big orange cheese himself will muscle in at some point?
Maybe politicians ought to be asking themselves how they transformed a country in which you almost never had to show ID to do anything [unless you were going abroad from an airport or ferry terminal] into one in which apparently ID cards are needed. You could open a bank account with nothing more than a gas bill until relatively recently IIRC, and society didn't collapse as a result.
It’s not just the UK though, it’s the same all over the developed world.
The reason is step by step actions and reactions to crime and terrorism.
People open accounts to send money to fund terror or drug dealing etc so governments insist on more protections to make it harder to open accounts. Crims and terrorists arrange for people to create fake IDs and addresses to get around the new rules so governments insist on stricter checks or controls and so on.
Added to how technology had changed with everything from bank accounts on your phone to fake AI people pretending to be real people to commit fraud etc there is a constant battle to keep ahead of the baddies.
People employ slave Labour trafficked on fake IDs etc so governments get demands to crack down understandably and so have to bring in more checks and controls.
Of course libertarians could say “let’s stop these controls and checks” but then I don’t want any complaining about drug dealing and terror attacks if it in some way affects them.
REMINDER: TEST MATCH RULES ARE NOW IN PLACE FOR THE RYDER CUP
Thankyou for your attention to this message.
It's a mistake to imbue sporting events with great significance in the grand scheme of things but I'm viewing this Ryder Cup as a battle between civilised European values and Trumpite barbarism.
Which of the US golfers are ‘out’ Trumpers just so I know how many voodoo dolls to make?
I'd guess many are but the outest is DeChambeau. He was on stage at Lago for the election victory party.
I’m assuming the big orange cheese himself will muscle in at some point?
They are readying him to come on as a supersub if the US are losing and they need the best golfer in the world to do a perfect few rounds of 18 hole-in-ones.
Ah, but sir, can you complete 18 holes in 17 shots?
You know, given the upfront purpose and the no need to carry, they should never have discontinued NI number cards, then this could have been mooted as merely an overhaul of the NI number card system.
I still have most of my NI number card issued in 1986, it now being brittle, a bit of one end has snapped off. Analogue ID, that is. I also still have a paper driving license - my wife who sent off for one for the change of address just days after me ended up with a photo one.
I still have mine and it really is card, i'm that old!
REMINDER: TEST MATCH RULES ARE NOW IN PLACE FOR THE RYDER CUP
Thankyou for your attention to this message.
It's a mistake to imbue sporting events with great significance in the grand scheme of things but I'm viewing this Ryder Cup as a battle between civilised European values and Trumpite barbarism.
Which of the US golfers are ‘out’ Trumpers just so I know how many voodoo dolls to make?
I'd guess many are but the outest is DeChambeau. He was on stage at Lago for the election victory party.
I’m assuming the big orange cheese himself will muscle in at some point?
They are readying him to come on as a supersub if the US are losing and they need the best golfer in the world to do a perfect few rounds of 18 hole-in-ones.
Ah, but sir, can you complete 18 holes in 17 shots?
Yes he can. He once hit a hole-in-one on a par 5 so well it bounced out of the hole, onto the next tee, a par 3, and using the momentum continued into the hole. True story.
An oddity of the MRP is that the Tories would win just over 10% of their 45 seats in the general Leicestershire/Rutland area, holding Mid Leics, South Leics, Leicester East, Market Harborough, and Rutland&Stamford.
Maybe politicians ought to be asking themselves how they transformed a country in which you almost never had to show ID to do anything [unless you were going abroad from an airport or ferry terminal] into one in which apparently ID cards are needed. You could open a bank account with nothing more than a gas bill until relatively recently IIRC, and society didn't collapse as a result.
It’s not just the UK though, it’s the same all over the developed world.
The reason is step by step actions and reactions to crime and terrorism.
People open accounts to send money to fund terror or drug dealing etc so governments insist on more protections to make it harder to open accounts. Crims and terrorists arrange for people to create fake IDs and addresses to get around the new rules so governments insist on stricter checks or controls and so on.
Added to how technology had changed with everything from bank accounts on your phone to fake AI people pretending to be real people to commit fraud etc there is a constant battle to keep ahead of the baddies.
People employ slave Labour trafficked on fake IDs etc so governments get demands to crack down understandably and so have to bring in more checks and controls.
Of course libertarians could say “let’s stop these controls and checks” but then I don’t want any complaining about drug dealing and terror attacks if it in some way affects them.
If we consider the July 7th bombings in London, can you tell me how these were enabled by terrorist financing, and are now made more difficult by the various identity checks mandated by law?
It would be interesting to see the details of how this happens in practice and how law changes make it harder.
Maybe politicians ought to be asking themselves how they transformed a country in which you almost never had to show ID to do anything [unless you were going abroad from an airport or ferry terminal] into one in which apparently ID cards are needed. You could open a bank account with nothing more than a gas bill until relatively recently IIRC, and society didn't collapse as a result.
It’s not just the UK though, it’s the same all over the developed world.
The reason is step by step actions and reactions to crime and terrorism.
People open accounts to send money to fund terror or drug dealing etc so governments insist on more protections to make it harder to open accounts. Crims and terrorists arrange for people to create fake IDs and addresses to get around the new rules so governments insist on stricter checks or controls and so on.
Added to how technology had changed with everything from bank accounts on your phone to fake AI people pretending to be real people to commit fraud etc there is a constant battle to keep ahead of the baddies.
People employ slave Labour trafficked on fake IDs etc so governments get demands to crack down understandably and so have to bring in more checks and controls.
Of course libertarians could say “let’s stop these controls and checks” but then I don’t want any complaining about drug dealing and terror attacks if it in some way affects them.
If we consider the July 7th bombings in London, can you tell me how these were enabled by terrorist financing, and are now made more difficult by the various identity checks mandated by law?
It would be interesting to see the details of how this happens in practice and how law changes make it harder.
How many more attacks would there have been if it was easier for terrorists to obtain bank accounts, money, IDs etc is more to the point.
And how are you going to try and reign in drug dealers and traffickers without controls on banking and ID?
As Our Generals and Admirals Fly Home, Our Adversaries Watch and Wait
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/hegseth-quantico-meeting-generals-admirals When I saw the news that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had ordered all U.S. military flag officers (generals and admirals) to gather at the Marine base in Quantico, Virginia, next week along with their senior enlisted advisors, my first response was disbelief. Not disbelief that the secretary of defense might want to deliver a strong message to the senior leaders of the force, but disbelief at the method.
In my forty years in uniform, I never saw anything like it. While senior leaders have been recalled to Washington to meet with the secretary of defense during all our wars, never once did a secretary summon all of the hundreds of one- to four-stars from each of the services, plus their top enlisted counterparts, from every corner of the globe to a single auditorium. Not during the Cold War, not during Desert Storm, not during the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not Rumsfeld, not Gates, not Panetta, not Mattis, not Austin.
They likely didn’t do it because it is disruptive. It is expensive. And it is unnecessary.
Even more remarkable, no one seems to know the reason for the meeting or what Secretary Hegseth intends to say. Normally, even when classified issues are in play, senior leaders have at least a broad sense of the agenda at a meeting of general officers and flag officers (GOFOs) and their senior enlisted advisors. Here, nothing. So, as you might imagine, speculation is running rampant...
Maybe politicians ought to be asking themselves how they transformed a country in which you almost never had to show ID to do anything [unless you were going abroad from an airport or ferry terminal] into one in which apparently ID cards are needed. You could open a bank account with nothing more than a gas bill until relatively recently IIRC, and society didn't collapse as a result.
It’s not just the UK though, it’s the same all over the developed world.
The reason is step by step actions and reactions to crime and terrorism.
People open accounts to send money to fund terror or drug dealing etc so governments insist on more protections to make it harder to open accounts. Crims and terrorists arrange for people to create fake IDs and addresses to get around the new rules so governments insist on stricter checks or controls and so on.
Added to how technology had changed with everything from bank accounts on your phone to fake AI people pretending to be real people to commit fraud etc there is a constant battle to keep ahead of the baddies.
People employ slave Labour trafficked on fake IDs etc so governments get demands to crack down understandably and so have to bring in more checks and controls.
Of course libertarians could say “let’s stop these controls and checks” but then I don’t want any complaining about drug dealing and terror attacks if it in some way affects them.
If we consider the July 7th bombings in London, can you tell me how these were enabled by terrorist financing, and are now made more difficult by the various identity checks mandated by law?
It would be interesting to see the details of how this happens in practice and how law changes make it harder.
As Herman Kahn observed, enemies tend to the things that are hardest to deal with, with current capabilities.
Most security measures taken are for the delight of security people, not the prevention of threats.
If China has cracked sodium ion batteries that would be huge news for renewables. Once produced at volume, they have the potential to be way cheaper than lithium ion.
As Our Generals and Admirals Fly Home, Our Adversaries Watch and Wait
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/hegseth-quantico-meeting-generals-admirals When I saw the news that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had ordered all U.S. military flag officers (generals and admirals) to gather at the Marine base in Quantico, Virginia, next week along with their senior enlisted advisors, my first response was disbelief. Not disbelief that the secretary of defense might want to deliver a strong message to the senior leaders of the force, but disbelief at the method.
In my forty years in uniform, I never saw anything like it. While senior leaders have been recalled to Washington to meet with the secretary of defense during all our wars, never once did a secretary summon all of the hundreds of one- to four-stars from each of the services, plus their top enlisted counterparts, from every corner of the globe to a single auditorium. Not during the Cold War, not during Desert Storm, not during the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not Rumsfeld, not Gates, not Panetta, not Mattis, not Austin.
They likely didn’t do it because it is disruptive. It is expensive. And it is unnecessary.
Even more remarkable, no one seems to know the reason for the meeting or what Secretary Hegseth intends to say. Normally, even when classified issues are in play, senior leaders have at least a broad sense of the agenda at a meeting of general officers and flag officers (GOFOs) and their senior enlisted advisors. Here, nothing. So, as you might imagine, speculation is running rampant...
Maybe politicians ought to be asking themselves how they transformed a country in which you almost never had to show ID to do anything [unless you were going abroad from an airport or ferry terminal] into one in which apparently ID cards are needed. You could open a bank account with nothing more than a gas bill until relatively recently IIRC, and society didn't collapse as a result.
It’s not just the UK though, it’s the same all over the developed world.
The reason is step by step actions and reactions to crime and terrorism.
People open accounts to send money to fund terror or drug dealing etc so governments insist on more protections to make it harder to open accounts. Crims and terrorists arrange for people to create fake IDs and addresses to get around the new rules so governments insist on stricter checks or controls and so on.
Added to how technology had changed with everything from bank accounts on your phone to fake AI people pretending to be real people to commit fraud etc there is a constant battle to keep ahead of the baddies.
People employ slave Labour trafficked on fake IDs etc so governments get demands to crack down understandably and so have to bring in more checks and controls.
Of course libertarians could say “let’s stop these controls and checks” but then I don’t want any complaining about drug dealing and terror attacks if it in some way affects them.
If we consider the July 7th bombings in London, can you tell me how these were enabled by terrorist financing, and are now made more difficult by the various identity checks mandated by law?
It would be interesting to see the details of how this happens in practice and how law changes make it harder.
How many more attacks would there have been if it was easier for terrorists to obtain bank accounts, money, IDs etc is more to the point.
And how are you going to try and reign in drug dealers and traffickers without controls on banking and ID?
It's a genuine question. I'm willing to be convinced.
But it seems like it's plenty easy for terrorists to obtain bank accounts because they're often normal people who have been radicalised and become terrorists. And drug dealers also seem to be quite successful in obtaining bank accounts by renting them from members of the public.
Have we covered the story that Tony Blair is about to be installed as Governor of Gaza by the Israelis?
They had a Palestinian chap on WATO who was, shall we say, none too impressed. Apparently the Whitehouse are deadly serious.
If they want a former UK PM, Boris Johnson would be a less controversial appointment. In fact I can't think of anyone more inappropriate than Blair.
Couldn't they have got Nigel to do it? Everything that happens in the world is always reported as being 'great news for Nigel Farage' so he couldn't go at all wrong.
Maybe politicians ought to be asking themselves how they transformed a country in which you almost never had to show ID to do anything [unless you were going abroad from an airport or ferry terminal] into one in which apparently ID cards are needed. You could open a bank account with nothing more than a gas bill until relatively recently IIRC, and society didn't collapse as a result.
It’s not just the UK though, it’s the same all over the developed world.
The reason is step by step actions and reactions to crime and terrorism.
People open accounts to send money to fund terror or drug dealing etc so governments insist on more protections to make it harder to open accounts. Crims and terrorists arrange for people to create fake IDs and addresses to get around the new rules so governments insist on stricter checks or controls and so on.
Added to how technology had changed with everything from bank accounts on your phone to fake AI people pretending to be real people to commit fraud etc there is a constant battle to keep ahead of the baddies.
People employ slave Labour trafficked on fake IDs etc so governments get demands to crack down understandably and so have to bring in more checks and controls.
Of course libertarians could say “let’s stop these controls and checks” but then I don’t want any complaining about drug dealing and terror attacks if it in some way affects them.
If we consider the July 7th bombings in London, can you tell me how these were enabled by terrorist financing, and are now made more difficult by the various identity checks mandated by law?
It would be interesting to see the details of how this happens in practice and how law changes make it harder.
How many more attacks would there have been if it was easier for terrorists to obtain bank accounts, money, IDs etc is more to the point.
And how are you going to try and reign in drug dealers and traffickers without controls on banking and ID?
The KGB & Gestapo never managed to stamp out drug dealers and traffickers. Despite having absolutely no limits on what they could do. And a less serious problem to deal with.
Maybe politicians ought to be asking themselves how they transformed a country in which you almost never had to show ID to do anything [unless you were going abroad from an airport or ferry terminal] into one in which apparently ID cards are needed. You could open a bank account with nothing more than a gas bill until relatively recently IIRC, and society didn't collapse as a result.
It’s not just the UK though, it’s the same all over the developed world.
The reason is step by step actions and reactions to crime and terrorism.
People open accounts to send money to fund terror or drug dealing etc so governments insist on more protections to make it harder to open accounts. Crims and terrorists arrange for people to create fake IDs and addresses to get around the new rules so governments insist on stricter checks or controls and so on.
Added to how technology had changed with everything from bank accounts on your phone to fake AI people pretending to be real people to commit fraud etc there is a constant battle to keep ahead of the baddies.
People employ slave Labour trafficked on fake IDs etc so governments get demands to crack down understandably and so have to bring in more checks and controls.
Of course libertarians could say “let’s stop these controls and checks” but then I don’t want any complaining about drug dealing and terror attacks if it in some way affects them.
If we consider the July 7th bombings in London, can you tell me how these were enabled by terrorist financing, and are now made more difficult by the various identity checks mandated by law?
It would be interesting to see the details of how this happens in practice and how law changes make it harder.
How many more attacks would there have been if it was easier for terrorists to obtain bank accounts, money, IDs etc is more to the point.
And how are you going to try and reign in drug dealers and traffickers without controls on banking and ID?
It's a genuine question. I'm willing to be convinced.
But it seems like it's plenty easy for terrorists to obtain bank accounts because they're often normal people who have been radicalised and become terrorists. And drug dealers also seem to be quite successful in obtaining bank accounts by renting them from members of the public.
If you could make this argument to the powers that be then I’m sure TSE and anyone else involved in the finance world would be delighted to have all the AML rules etc removed as they are clearly unnecessary and don’t stop terrorism and crime. All these thousands of people have been wasting their time and huge sums of money bringing in compliance teams and procedures - they should have just listened to gut feels off the internet.
I take it Farage will pledge to scrap any ID card scheme on day one.
Will he?
If he wants to know where all those very, very bad PBers, who have bad-mouthed Brave Sir Nigel are, like myself, Roger and Kinabalu, surely he could brush away scrapping the scheme as being too expensive to discard.
July 1935 German generals were called to a surprise assembly in Berlin and informed that their previous oath to the Weimar constitution was void and that they would be required to swear a personal oath to the Führer. Most generals took the new oath to keep their positions.
Comments
They would be lucky to get to 50 seats with that in a General Election, as the other 73% voters range from hate them to ******* hate them. 😆
I think we can now confidently call we have had peak farage and peak reform.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2djl9jem7o
Which will then enforce perfection without need for conscience, morality etc.
Plant in Beckton has run only five times and has been beset by multiple problems since it was built
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/sep/26/500m-thames-water-desalination-plant-has-provided-just-seven-days-water-over-15-years
I'd call them a complete shower, but they probably couldn't deliver that, either.
Hmm this doesn't look good.
A more subtle problem is that we do not really have official names in this country. You can call yourself what you like (subject to fraud, copyright and trademark rules) with no need for deed poll. That will change if there is to be a central register.
It makes it quite a brave move politically for something that will likely end up bogged down in consultation, Parliament and development for most or all of Starmer's time in office.
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/hegseth-quantico-meeting-generals-admirals
When I saw the news that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had ordered all U.S. military flag officers (generals and admirals) to gather at the Marine base in Quantico, Virginia, next week along with their senior enlisted advisors, my first response was disbelief. Not disbelief that the secretary of defense might want to deliver a strong message to the senior leaders of the force, but disbelief at the method.
In my forty years in uniform, I never saw anything like it. While senior leaders have been recalled to Washington to meet with the secretary of defense during all our wars, never once did a secretary summon all of the hundreds of one- to four-stars from each of the services, plus their top enlisted counterparts, from every corner of the globe to a single auditorium. Not during the Cold War, not during Desert Storm, not during the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not Rumsfeld, not Gates, not Panetta, not Mattis, not Austin.
They likely didn’t do it because it is disruptive. It is expensive. And it is unnecessary.
Even more remarkable, no one seems to know the reason for the meeting or what Secretary Hegseth intends to say. Normally, even when classified issues are in play, senior leaders have at least a broad sense of the agenda at a meeting of general officers and flag officers (GOFOs) and their senior enlisted advisors. Here, nothing. So, as you might imagine, speculation is running rampant...
I don’t think we’re anywhere near Peak Reform yet. This time next year - maybe. But it is hard to see a scenario where they won’t get significant momentum from the local/Welsh/Scottish results in 2026.
As for the rather tired idea that the elderly are too dim to handle the technology- which is nonsense- when the Estonians initiated their systems, under the so-called "tiger leap", anyone who wanted help could go to their local library and they could ask. Essentially everyone in Estonia uses the systems, and instead of calling your doctor at 8am to get an appointment, you can actually email, but to make an appointment, r if needed to cancel, and your appointment is immediately given to those waiting. You can deal with the tax authorities in real time- I am still waiting to get an appointment to discuss my position with the HMRC (I want to PAY some tax) after over 10 months.
UK public administration can no longer function with paper based systems from a century ago. It is not whether digital services should be offered, it is how and how securely.
There is nothing new under the sun in this. Back in 2007 I was a consultee on the Nuffield Council on Bioethics consultation on the collection, retention and use of bioinformation by the Government and its agencies. Even then it was obvious that databases were open to abuse and were being abused and that there was disproportionate targeting of specific sections of society - notably ethnic minorities who were vastly overrepresented on the National DNA database. I do not trust in ay way that the situation has improved.
The gang of cyber criminals is using the highly sensitive information to demand a ransom from the company, which has 18 sites in and around London, with more in the US and India.
The criminals say they also have information about the children's parents and carers as well as safeguarding notes.
They claim to have contacted some parents by phone as part of their extortion tactics."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62ldyvpwv9o
We already have proof of right to work though in this country, which decent employers are already quite familiar with and crooks are quite prepared to ignore.
This won't do anything to tackle the crooks.
And there’s all the @SeanTs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menzies_Campbell#Athletics_career
"At one time he was known as "the fastest white man on the planet", running the 100m in 10.2 seconds twice during 1967. In his first 10.2-second race he beat O. J. Simpson, who was then an aspiring athlete."
The point is that there ae countless ways that data can be abused, especially where data from different sources can be combined to make inferences that are not possible from just one source.
Yes, we need to be careful about trusting the government with our data. But we also need to be very careful about trusting companies with our data - and exceptionally careful about trusting foreign companies.
Thankyou for your attention to this message.
Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out.
When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side thats been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out.
Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in.
There are two men called umpires who stay out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out.
When both sides have been in and all the men have got out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game!
But that does not say that what private companies and foreign entities could do - and perhaps are doing - may not be far worse. And at the end of the day, the government does not want scandals and, in extremis, we can vote them out.
These private companies misusing our data - and especially foreign ones? As long as their profit margins look fine, they're happy. And once they have the data, there's little we can do about it.
And remember that Thiel's end view of all of this is very dystopian.
Lab 33.7%
Con 23.7%
Reform 14.3%
Green 6.7%
LibDem 12.2%
into it?
😀
When you go to multi party politics under FPTP you go to voting blocks, that’s never going to be block going to polling booth for what they want, but what they don’t want. Can confidently predict now, May 3rd 2029 is the ganging up on Bogey Man Election.
That's because a lot of Conservative voters would tactically vote for Reform over either Labour of the Lib Dems.
Of the 937951 signatures 933059 are currently tagged as from the uk.
There are 7 from Israel, 1 from Palestine, and 2 from the British Antarctic Territory. Cambodia beats them all at 9.
I agree with you on this proposal. Palantir's involvement is deeply sinister and I do not trust government one bit, frankly. No-one looking at its record on cock ups, miscarriages of justice, IT disasters, corrupt contracts, etc etc could be other than mistrustful of both its competence and its motives, regardless of party.
Meanwhile, my accountant tells me that an 75 year old trustee of a charity for whom they are doing the accounts has just resigned because he's unable to fulfil the ID requirements the accountant has to impose on them.
One of the big fallacies of modern politics is that laws like this don't really cost anything beyond a little bit of inconvenience; actually they are steadily strangling the country to death.
I still have most of my NI number card issued in 1986, it now being brittle, a bit of one end has snapped off. Analogue ID, that is. I also still have a paper driving license - my wife who sent off for one for the change of address just days after me ended up with a photo one.
This is the man who managed to introduce a form of indefinite internment for some prisoners. For public protection. Well a lot of evil can be done in the name of "public protection". It's the handy go-to for authoritarians of all types.
Once produced at volume, they have the potential to be way cheaper than lithium ion.
CATL’s sodium-ion EV battery passes China’s new certification with 15-minute fast-charging capability
https://www.evinfrastructurenews.com/ev-technology/catl-s-sodium-ion-ev-battery-passes-china-s-new-certification-with-15-minute-fast-charging-capability
It would substantially change the calculations for solar plus storage.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy50ggv35zpo
1) Being mean to the GREAT orange leader
2) Not doing what the orange one told him to do
Having said that, here's hoping.
The reason is step by step actions and reactions to crime and terrorism.
People open accounts to send money to fund terror or drug dealing etc so governments insist on more protections to make it harder to open accounts. Crims and terrorists arrange for people to create fake IDs and addresses to get around the new rules so governments insist on stricter checks or controls and so on.
Added to how technology had changed with everything from bank accounts on your phone to fake AI people pretending to be real people to commit fraud etc there is a constant battle to keep ahead of the baddies.
People employ slave Labour trafficked on fake IDs etc so governments get demands to crack down understandably and so have to bring in more checks and controls.
Of course libertarians could say “let’s stop these controls and checks” but then I don’t want any complaining about drug dealing and terror attacks if it in some way affects them.
The BBC article is also trying to normalise the insanity "even if Mr Comey got things wrong..."
https://youtu.be/yzLT6_TQmq8?si=iuqXc2layEqkE_aH
It would be interesting to see the details of how this happens in practice and how law changes make it harder.
And how are you going to try and reign in drug dealers and traffickers without controls on banking and ID?
If they want a former UK PM, Boris Johnson would be a less controversial appointment. In fact I can't think of anyone more inappropriate than Blair.
All it needs is one medium sized bomb.
Most security measures taken are for the delight of security people, not the prevention of threats.
Makes sense I guess.
https://youtu.be/g1mTJS0L_Hs?si=VyuSo76fmEZnrS7s
But it seems like it's plenty easy for terrorists to obtain bank accounts because they're often normal people who have been radicalised and become terrorists. And drug dealers also seem to be quite successful in obtaining bank accounts by renting them from members of the public.
If he wants to know where all those very, very bad PBers, who have bad-mouthed Brave Sir Nigel are, like myself, Roger and Kinabalu, surely he could brush away scrapping the scheme as being too expensive to discard.
I see that good old Blunkett and Blair are coming out in favour, as expected. One almost feels like getting my 2006 CD's out again.
But I trust no politician to keep their pledges once they are actually in power. Farage is no exception.
July 1935 German generals were called to a surprise assembly in Berlin and informed that their previous oath to the Weimar constitution was void and that they would be required to swear a personal oath to the Führer. Most generals took the new oath to keep their positions.
@PeteHegseth
Cool story, General
https://x.com/PeteHegseth/status/1971532130712002775