Today we had a foreign exchange person working with us. he came from denmark, spoke very good english (was quite cute) and he told us this of denmarks system.

EVERYTHING is kept on one massive database. all bank accounts are kept on it, car insurance details (you have to produce your licence before buying a car and have insurance and your identity card), when you are employed your employer must by law put your details on this database, your council tax (equivalent) is taken directly from your wages/income, if you buy a sofa but dont keep up repayments on it then try to get a bank loan you will get turned down ebcause it appears on this database.

its basically a big brother state and after the initial whinging very very few people get away with benefit fraud or other types of fraud. obviously credit agencies can only see what is meant for them to see but its all there on one big database.

so do you, like me, think this would be a better way of running this country?

Any way would be better that the system in the UK at the moment that welcomes dossers, charvers, immigrants and other twats in - and pays them for it.

I hate things that interfere with people's liberty. I have been outspoken in the Complete Ban on Smoking thread about this - because I hate the government infringing on my rights as a person. At the same time, I am all for Identity Cards - which, IMHO, do not infringe on anyone who has nothing to hide. I'm a good lad - no fraud, robbery, benefits fiddling. ID Cards would help stop this, and this database is nothing more than a massive ID Card for everyone in the country.

I reckon it'd be an efficient way to run all the legal and financial aspects of the country, and should be implemented alongside ID cards. I often think (perhaps wrongly) that people who object to these sorts of things must have something to hide.

I got something to hide. Got a few things actually.

Could anyone actually see this country managing to do this without going twice over budget and it not working after anyway?

Big brother would seriously shaft me over, druge arms fraud tax evasion, im proper screwed if that goes ahead....

system woul be open to abuse me thinks. abit like sandra bullock in that film the net. delete your info and you don't exist. paranoi runs free with me. *looks over shoulder* *twitch twitch*

AnthillMob spouted:
its basically a big brother state

for those of you who have read 1984 , does this sound like a good thing?

Personally, I don't think it does, and what if your bank details were deleted as postal postie said? I foresee problems with the idea.

justbecause spouted:


for those of you who have read 1984 , does this sound like a good thing?

Personally, I don't think it does, and what if your bank details were deleted as postal postie said? I foresee problems with the idea.

It amazes me the number of people who have not read 1984 nor are aware of the origin of the BIG Brother idea - no i am not talking about the C4 reality show.

As to the Danish way of life, the bacon is good, the idea of a central database it not. Meh - give the ammount of fraud which is currently occurring with the UK systems although i see it have advatages with reducing such frauds, i do see it making identity theft and new frauds to be easier to perprtrait

I tend to eat pickled cockles more than i think is nessassary ,would this be on my database?

justbecause spouted:


for those of you who have read 1984 , does this sound like a good thing?

Personally, I dont think it does


I suspect you're not alone

I'd argue that sooner or later we must embrace new technology and its obvious benefits, we're in a stable country so why fall pray to paranoia and/or plump for the worst case scenario

The problem with any system - Big Brother, Communism, Feudalism, Capatalism - is that it relys on people to operate, and people can and will always be selfish.
So wherever there is a way to make something for nothing, someone will have a go and abuse the system in place. Which then makes everyone else paranoid and more and more stupid policies come into effect to close created holes until the whole shebang falls down and we all have to start again from another system...

Let's go back and live in caves. Me Ugh.

No, no. The defence that "...Identity Cards...do not infringe on anyone who has nothing to hide." is just wrong. The issue of whther they are a force for good depends on your level of trust, not only of the people who hold the information, but also of the people who will inherit this database in the future

So, let's say that you trust the current government to use the data they hold only for legitimate law-enforcement purposes. In the light of current revelations regarding the bugging of Romano Prodi and Hans Blix; the evidence that we were taken into a war on lies and false pretences, and the secret decision taken to allow GM crop trials despite massive public opposition, this could possibly open you to a charge of criminal negligence were you to take the executive decision to allow the introduction of a national database and ID cards. However, that's not where it ends.

What about the future? This database has the potential to outlive us all. We can't possibly know what will happen in in the rest of our lifespans and beyond. It's obviously hysterical and melodramatic to compare the current government with a totalitarian one, but it is not invoncivvable that such a government could seize power in this country at a time in the future. In fact, by allowing a centralised database of details to be held on every citizen in this country, it could be said that the conditions were being created for just such a government to become reality.

"You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" is lazy, irresponsible thought of the worst kind. Do you think that the Jews, gypsies and gay men and women persecuted in Poland, Germany, France, Russia and the Netherlands in the thirties and forties had anything to hide? Do you think that the Bosnian Muslims who were the result of 'ethnic cleansing' had some kind of secret guilt for which they were being punished?

If you think that it's fanciful to imagine that this kind of thing could happen, ask yourself if any citizens of any nation in history have thought that it could happen to them. Look over the Atlantic at what's going on there. Look at the abuses of human rights that go on daily in all corners of the globe.

Think before you irresponsibly and idly endorse oppressive policies.

Ha ha ha ha, for a moment I thought Kofi Annan would appear on Dazzla's list.

A database is necessary, just as Britain's nuclear weapons were necessary during the cold war. Shouldn't we look at the non-existent rampant abuse of human rights in this country ? I fear that a plethora of traitors, conpiracy theorists, scum bag journos and other miscreants are mucking up progress.

sausages spouted:
sooner or later we must embrace new technology and its obvious benefits, we're in a stable country so why fall pray to paranoia and/or plump for the worst case scenario


Well, civil liberties considerations aside,
why? because "worst case scenario" is a phrase synonymous with Government IT based projects.

Witness the abysmal white elephant that was the HOLMES (Home Office Large Major Enquiry System) computer system rolled out in 1986 for the UK Police forces. Despite budget over-runs (estimated up to £1 million per major metropolitan force) the system constantly failed to deliver to spec, and even now almost two decades later its successor HOLMES2 has yet to be fully implemented.

Then there's the National Insurance Recording System (NIRS2) Andersen Consulting (now Accenture) was awarded the £134m NIRS2 contract in 1995 but a report by the National Audit Office revealed that the cost rocketed to £300m because of the extra costs of upgrading the NIRS2 system, and compensation payments resulting from errors.

Additional costs included £85m compensation to individuals whose rebate payments had been made late as a result of difficulties and delays in implementing the NIRS2 system, and £67.9m for an 'Integrated Recovery Programme' to fix the problems with the system when problems emerged after it went live in 1997.

Go to www.silicon.com & search on "NIRS2" for the abysmal track record of this system.

& Lets not even get started on the well documented fuckup that was (& is to this day) The Child Support agency.

Somehow, even if this country bought the Danes system 'off the peg', I'm sure they'd find a way to make a total fuck-up of it.

Digital Dogcow spouted:


Witness the abysmal white elephant that was the HOLMES (Home Office Large Major Enquiry System) computer system rolled out in 1986 for the UK Police forces. Despite budget over-runs (estimated up to £1 million per major metropolitan force) the system constantly failed to deliver to spec, and even now almost two decades later its successor HOLMES2 has yet to be fully implemented.



don't you find it strange that they didn't scrap the idea all together ?

justbecause spouted:


what if your bank details were deleted as postal postie said? I foresee problems with the idea.

I can't imagine internet banking and the printing out of statements in your own home

Please dont multiple post. Especially when you're posts only contain one line and make no sense. Any concerns about it, please read the rules (http://www.dogbomb.co.uk/board/misc.php?action=rules)

K Thanks...

sausages spouted:
don't you find it strange that they didn't scrap the idea all together ?

Maybe that wouldn't have been such a bad idea considering its taken 20 years, an inordinate amount of taxpayers money & still isn't a fully comprehensive nationwide system.

Can you honestly say,given the cited examples you would expect them to fare any better with a national, all-embracing financial database?

Would not such a system be a monumental undertaking compared to the smaller projects they already have demonstrably failed to get right?.

Even the NIRS2 would be small compared to a system that had to hold ALL financial details on 60 million individual citizens.

I'd be very interested to learn about the alternatives to these newfangled systems. By your logic, would you suggest that the DVLA in Swansea jot your details down on scraps of paper, and churn out handwritten V1984 forms ?

Documents can be lost or made to dissappear too justbecause.

Dazzla, it is possible that the database system could be hi-jacked in the future. It is possible that little green men could arrive from France in the future. It's not worth worrying about.

Digital Dogcow spouted:


Would not such a system be a monumental undertaking compared to the smaller projects they already have demonstrably failed to get right?.

Even the NIRS2 would be small compared to a system that had to hold ALL financial details on 60 million individual citizens.

Contract it out, just don't get overwhelmed by the idea.

It would be little more than adding a few columns to a spreadsheet. Remember when ZX 81s were 'the business'.

**Rolls eyes**

NIRS2 was contracted out, to Andersen Consulting

HOLMES & HOLMES2 were contracted out, to Unisys.

Are you missing the point here, or trolling in a serious debate thread?

were you involved with the project

Our government should contact it out to the people who set up the system in Denmark. We could learn from their teething troubles and alter stuff.

this is serious

Then if you are being serious, offer credible rebuttals. statements like

sausages spouted:
It would be little more than adding a few columns to a spreadsheet. Remember when ZX 81s were 'the business'.

are not only erroneous, they offer nothing to the debate.

Why should I allow any person look at the details of my financial position,pattern of my DNA,thumprint,history of my mother in laws inabilaty to pay her council tax , my uncles (wanker) prison sentence for touching little boys,when I cannot access the files of those who are able to see mine?

thankyou for your opinion Digital Dogcow, I shall narrow my mind accordingly if you stop altering your posts

I think that the technology and power of todays computers and IT systems could easily handle all the information. 20 odd years ago this wasn't the case.

The National Audit Office report I cited on NIRS2 is from a silicon.com article dated January 22 2004. These are not problems on 20 year old computer systems.

also the only post I have edited was my previous one, to add the names of the companies, and to add the question "Are you missing the point here, or trolling in a serious debate thread?"

A perfectly reasonable one to ask given your response quoted above & the "little green men could arrive from France" response to Dazzla.

(oh yeah and I edited this one as well, to include everything after the first paragraph)

Oh Christ, you're deliberately missing the point again.

The systems are still there because there are no practical alternatives and they're damn good ideas. Just like the Danish database is a good idea.

Why not try and improve the systems, make them better, instead of slagging them off ? I can see your outlook on life.

If you have any further responses to make to me, do so by PM & we'll continue this there.

cappy spouted:
Why should I allow any person look at the details of my financial position,pattern of my DNA,thumprint........
...........when I cannot access the files of those who are able to see mine?

perhaps 'any' person may need information gleaned from patterns of behaviour eg Ian Huntley's former employer/interviewer

perhaps 'any' person may need information gleaned from patterns of behaviour eg Ian Huntley's former employer/interviewer

Oh. Yeah. Psychometric profiling. And we all know what a huge success that is in catching the right people, first time round. If you're going to argue for such quack scientists to have access to these records, I wonder whose side you are arguing.

So, what about phrenology? Should we submit topological maps of our heads for profiling?

You are arrogantly ignoring the concerns of the people whose data will be held. You rposition is exactly the same as that of the current labour government in that you seem to be determined to argue in favour of this and steamroller it through despite the very real concerns that people have over leaving their personal data in the hands of a government who has been proven to be in thrall to big business and a supporter of unsavoury regimes.

"It's not worth bothering about"? In whose opinion? I can see a lot of people who consider it a prime concern.

Regarding the government's record on IT projects: it is shockingly, almost criminally bad. The model at the moment is to award 20 or 30-year contracts to companies like Crapita with little or no penalty clause provision. This means that Siemens and Crapita can cut corners, increase costs and prevaricate as much as they like, but the government is powerless to force them to complete the job or, indeed, get someone more competent to do so. Why does this happen? It's easily uinderstood if you can grasp that public-private partnership is not designed to increase funding and innovation in publically-funded projects, but to shovel money from the public purse into private pockets.

How else do you think your tax pounds get into the pockets of so many rich men?

But that's a subject for another thread. Summary: a national database would only benefit private investors and corporations. On balance, it would be against the public interest.

Dazzla spouted:


Oh. Yeah. Psychometric profiling.

??????
but anyway


And we all know what a huge success that is in catching the right people, first time round.

yorkshire ripper, jeff dahlmer etc etc ?


So, what about phrenology? Should we submit topological maps of our heads for profiling?

yet further off the topic

You are arrogantly ignoring the concerns of the people whose data will be held.

You mean the concerns of Iain Huntley's ilk ?

You rposition is exactly the same as that of the current labour government in that you seem to be determined to argue in favour of this and steamroller it through despite the very real concerns that people have over leaving their personal data in the hands of a government.........

fair point

who has been proven to be in thrall to big business and a supporter of unsavoury regimes.

the railways ?
Saddam's Iraq ?


"It's not worth bothering about"? In whose opinion? I can see a lot of people who consider it a prime concern.

"yes".
optomists.
concerns of X-files fanatics ? criminals and criminals ?

Regarding the government's record on IT projects: it is shockingly, almost criminally bad.


a bit rich but governments and legislation aren't set in stone



Why does this happen? It's easily uinderstood if you can grasp that public-private partnership is not designed to increase funding and innovation in publically-funded projects, but to shovel money from the public purse into private pockets.

Q. why doesn't the government just give them the money and send them home
A. because systems must be put in place at the end of the day, eg passports, air traffic control.

anything else is incidental/subjective

How else do you think your tax pounds get into the pockets of so many rich men?

good money paid to the best/only professionals, maybe?

I've drifted and ranted........
But that's a subject for another thread.
How convenient

Summary: a national database would only benefit private investors and corporations. On balance, it would be against the public interest.

let me cap my ignorance with another 'non sequitur'

Mind if i ask the purpose of the above post? I've read it, a couple of times (didn't take long) and all i've found is an overruse of quotations (from the previous post, which is unnecessary) backed up with very little substance. Maybe you can explain what you are trying to say in more than a couple of lines?

I don't mind at all unordinarychild, the purpose of the 'said post is to challenge other people's views on a subject. This is often done by contradicting other people . Some people refer to this process as debating.

Ok, i'll rewrite what i just said.

The process of debating is to develop your own opinion on something and express that by writing in a clear concise manner, carefully explaining your views on said topic. Debating however, does not include quoting the entire opinion of another user and picking it apart with trivial one line responses that make as much sense as a Baboon driving a tractor. If you have a strong opinion on this topic, please take the time to develop your responses abit more clearly and maybe I won't have to spend my time writing things like this.

Once again, The Rules can be found here (http://www.dogbomb.co.uk/board/misc.php?action=rules).

Sorted?

Thanks

Derail Over...

:)

that's fine by me, thank you for making me see the error of my ways.

Can't even ask a sensible question,without have to wade through the bollocks too to a non-answer

The Danish system can only be accessed by professionals and filters are placed at the terminals (eg shops) so that only the relevant information (ie credit history) appears on the shopkeeper's monitor. I'm sure you have nothing to hide that would be exposed by a European database.

Do Finland have this type of operation

interesting point, they have a system (developed in the eighties) and it had severe teething troubles. It has been progressively modified and is considered the best ID system in the world - it's not perfect, but what system ever is.

At the risk of sounding flippant, not the one that's not worked on.

moxie spouted:
At the risk of sounding flippant, not the one that's not worked on.

Eh?

Q. why doesn't the government just give them the money and send them home
A. because systems must be put in place at the end of the day, eg passports, air traffic control.

anything else is incidental/subjective

snip

let me cap my ignorance with another 'non sequitur' [/B]

?