Quisling territory?

Mar 07, 2006 12:08

Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 20

(The comment has been removed)

gently_snoozing March 7 2006, 13:19:09 UTC
Mainly due to the continuous function creep that has been associated with this project. Wooly definitions in the legislation and the intent to remedy the details with SI's rather than legislation - so much less scrutiny that way. Added to the vast number of people who can suddenly have access to discrete individualising data.

Also of course there is the fact that the two most likely biometric identifiers to be used are in one case forgeable and the other guaranteed to be in the next year or so. Fingerprints can already be done and there are several companies out there making contact lenses with holes in them which can potentially have a faked iris pattern marked on them, but allow the pupil to still be scanned.

Bear in mind that this would appear to be a "gold" standard irrefutable item and lo and behold forgeries kick in and your identity is permanently stolen and invalidated. You don't get to change your own identifiers. Unless your weird and decide to lop your fingers off and take your eyes out of course.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

gently_snoozing March 7 2006, 14:09:26 UTC
SI - statutory instrument.

Mainly the failure of controlling the data. On the whole the UK Gov is appaling at anything involving large IT projects. Bear in mind that New Labour voted against a social card scheme back in the 1990's and it was hammered home because everyone said it was too complex. This thing is several generations further along and several orders of magnitude more complex.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up