National photo IDs?

No, it sounds like direct democracy like Switzerland as opposed to representative democracy as we have here.

The downside to that is that legislation gets bogged down in referenda and stuff that is good for people might not get voted through because its not popular. Sound familiar?

One of the Baltic countries (Estonia?) has the right idea with ID. The citizens have the right to see who has queried their details on the database. It would keep the politicians and law-enforcement (all of it not just the Police Service whose primary duty is to uphold the law) honest. Trawling the database for no good reason would be a gross misconduct sackable offence in a “here’s a black bag, these two security officers will accompany you to your desk to empty it and then vacate the premises” style

Cougar

Links please.

They are only claiming they exist or can … not in widespread use.

Actually, don’t bother. You’re a stone bonker and this is just thread derailment.

By the above you totally failed to see the very relevant part .. assume it can/will exist

The dumb-masses will clamour for it as it will be highly incentivised (or at least seem to be).

We aren’t far off even in general use. For many it seems phones are inseparable yet we happily carry these around and are trackable. Immigrants were REQUIRED to have a smartphone for identification when applying for citizenship…

Poly

Then things like Facebook and CA came along. Now they were doing sneaky, nasty shit with data specifically to manipulate people to do things. Were politicians aghast? Were they looking to toughen the powers of the ICO and criminalise using people’s data to manipulate them? No – really the opposite, political parties (and their funding influencers) were part of the bloody problem. Political leaders want to track more (like which internet sites we visit) and regulate less. Suddenly I’m not so sure I want to trust governments with this sort of data.

Not only do they want to track your footprint but they then want to send you misleading information using that and create bubbles.

They are only claiming they exist or can … not in widespread use.

So it’s unsubstantiated nonsense then. Good good.

Who is “they” in this context?

By the above you totally failed to see the very relevant part .. assume it can/will exist

Why? Should I equally assume that an alien invasion or the zombie apocalypse is imminent? It’s OK, I’ll easily be able to escape using my rocket pants. They’re not in widespread use but they claim they exist or can.

Cougar

So it’s unsubstantiated nonsense then. Good good.

Should I equally assume that an alien invasion or the zombie apocalypse is imminent?

I can’t see how you can even connect the two.
We have all the technology required to make much more complex in-vitro devices and do.
The first implantable pacemaker was fitted in 1958 modern ones are inserted via a leg catheter.
We routinely tag pets with implantable devices.
Our phones routinely record the information required…
Non of this is science fiction.

My mum has a blood sugar monitor (not necessarily that one)
https://www.nxp.com/applications/industrial/secure-healthcare-solutions/diabetes-care:BLOOD-GLUCOSE-MANAGEMENT

Who is “they” in this context?

They would be the person you quoted (Vegan Rider)

Zombie apocalypse?
Depends how you describe people wandering about with mobile phones. It sure seems that way sometimes.

The important point veganrider was making is many people will by enthusistic about having in-vitro devices.

My concern is that then becomes like people who are enthusiastic about having mobile phones or other forms of ID etc. until it forces those who aren’t to also adopt.

Apologies, I thought it was veganrider responding, I didn’t clock the different username.

I’ll reply to the rest later, I’m off out.

I’m back home. I did a track day, it was good.

We have all the technology required
…
Non of this is science fiction.

And? We have the technology for a lot of things.

The important point veganrider was making is many people will by enthusistic about having in-vitro devices.

There’s a lot to unpick here. Not least, “people will be enthusiastic about [something]” is wild speculation. Will they?

And, is that inherently bad?

My concern is that then becomes like people who are enthusiastic about having mobile phones or other forms of ID etc. until it forces those who aren’t to also adopt.

It’s all a bit Revelations.

COUGAR

I’m back home. I did a track day, it was good.

Cool, you ever considered one of those eTrails days?
(Over Slaidburn way) looks a lot of fun.

There’s a lot to unpick here.

Erm, yep which is why dismissive “tin foil hat” responses aren’t relevant and this IS relevant to voter ID.
So backwards quotes ….

And, is that inherently bad?

I think it depends on context hence why I chose medical devices to illustrate.
Lets take a pace maker (my Dad had one for 30+ years) ..
At one end we have a dumb pacemaker (not really common anymore) .. more sophisticated ones that respond to exercise
All sounds like tech we generally would say is benevolent… we could easily add lots to this functionality like recording data and adding monitoring of other health parameters…

You could argue in the UK these health parameters should be shared for further research as the NHS is paying for the implant and device but then would you support denying someone a device based on automatic monitoring?
I guess we already do this… we deny expensive treatments to people who make some lifestyle choices but not others

I’m not that OK with that, especially when the lifestyle choice isn’t directly related to the treatment.
HOWEVER: Should these then be shared with insurers, employers ? I’m starting to get VERY NOT OK

So far I’m talking about adding functionality to existing life saving devices… that could potentially make them even more life saving/extending… so let me fork slightly….

Fork a) – New devices (say pacemaker) are restricted to people who agree to extended monitoring of their alcohol/nicotine/glucose/exercise/GPS location etc.
a1) – Data ONLY used for research and double blind anonymised
a2) – Data not anonymised and used to determine if the NHS are going to foot the bill to change battery or do another treatment
a3) – Data shared with advertisers/sponsors/insurance/employer (employer might be NHS) and further data (lets say sexual arousal to add some spice) also collected/calculatable alongside monitoring what your phone is seeing…

Fork b) – Optional device that is just a monitor … (not medically active like a pacemaker)
b1) – Optional device that the user can 100% control sharing of info
b2) – Optional device that shares non anonymised data with your GP/NHS
b3) – Insurance companies/employees are allowed to insist of a device being implanted (like a car black box that some employers insist and some insurance insists)

You could extend these but the point really is I’m not happy personally with anything beyond A1/B1

Not least, “people will be enthusiastic about [something]” is wild speculation. Will they?

Well my mum loves her glucose monitor… my Dad certainly was happy to have a pacemaker and not die… the question really is would my mum (or yours) be happy with a2/a3 ? (for the sake of semi decency referring to our mums lets change the sexual arousal to shopping habits)

I’m not personally happy having to use a smartphone outside of work, I worked in tech my whole life and I’d like not to have to use tech for my personal life.
I find the assumption I have one quite restrictive.. quite often turning one on is stressful for me (due to past employer) and as I said ownership of a late model Apple/Android was mandatory for any EU citizen applying for indefinite right to remain, Covid passports etc. etc.. As mentioned earlier by someone else… a smartphone is pretty much required by people to claim benefits..

You are quite happy (it seems) with your current usage/tracking etc. and that is fine by me until you want to tell me I should be as well. e.g. compulsory use a parking app that requires a newer model phone and AND specifically any public parking (council etc.) or planning viewing a privately operated car park that requires a phone to count towards mandatory spaces.

SO
Whilst you had a track day I was tuning some forks… forgot my wallet and don’t have any payment set up on my phone.

I guess my “local” knows me well enough to not ask if I had ApplePay or something… and well enough to give me credit on a few beers through the day but there is no reason I couldn’t have my bank card chip implanted.. It doesn’t even need to be 1/10th of the size… and it might have been convenient in this case ? Obviously it would make the “please insert card/pin” a bit tricky but …

There is now a difference, my location of a in-vitro chip now pretty much ties my physical body to being in the pub… probably not in itself a problem… but then what else gets tied up in the same way phones currently tie together lots of other stuff.

Do I want my GP or insurer to question my max HR? (I can firmly say no – I don’t even want to know myself – I stopped using HR monitors because it was constantly telling me I was imminently going to die yet I haven’t and if I do die, the last thing I want is my insurer invalidating my policy)

So ??

And, is that inherently bad?

I think it is when it becomes non optional to simply live.

It’s all a bit Revelations.

32mm or 35mm??
However I can only choose 35mm now but more relevant I can only buy BOOST…

For all the “you will still be able to buy” rhetoric in real terms my options for forks, shocks, hubs are all severally restricted even though we were all assured otherwise. I know I don’t need new forks to live, I’m just trying to illustrate the “no-one will be forced” often turns out to be untrue in practice.

There’s a lot to unpick here. Not least, “people will be enthusiastic about [something]” is wild speculation. Will they?

And, is that inherently bad?

I’m reminded of the arguments surrounding parents (mostly in the US I think) having their kids carry tracking devices, even having RFID chips implanted. And the pro arguments being centered around ‘safety’. But then there were counter arguments about stuff like consent, and the potential for abuse. We’ve already seen a few instances where AirTags or similar have been used for nefarious purposes. My feeling is that if there’s even just potential for abuse, we should be treading very cautiously indeed. I think Poly sums it up here:

Then things like Facebook and CA came along. Now they were doing sneaky, nasty shit with data specifically to manipulate people to do things. Were politicians aghast? Were they looking to toughen the powers of the ICO and criminalise using people’s data to manipulate them? No – really the opposite, political parties (and their funding influencers) were part of the bloody problem. Political leaders want to track more (like which internet sites we visit) and regulate less. Suddenly I’m not so sure I want to trust governments with this sort of data.

We’ve already seen how undercover police agents were used by UK governments, to spy on and undermine groups and organisations that were deemed a ‘threat’ to the state in some way or another (basically made up shit), and how this has undermined our democracy and rights. Add in modern technology, and this becomes even more insidious. I don’t trust the government one bit, and I trust the police even less. This is an abuse of power. I think Vegan rider raises a very good point re public willingness to accept such surveillance into their lives; we have less ‘privacy’ than we used to, via ‘phones, computers etc. Alexa and Siri are always listening. So I don’t think there’s any need to dismiss such views as ‘tinfoil hat nonsense’ etc, that’s just rude.

This is an abuse of power. I think Vegan rider raises a very good point re public willingness to accept such surveillance into their lives; we have less ‘privacy’ than we used to, via ‘phones, computers etc. Alexa and Siri are always listening. So I don’t think there’s any need to dismiss such views as ‘tinfoil hat nonsense’ etc, that’s just rude.

Some people are happy for Alexa/Siri to be always listening… which when they are alone is really up to them.
The main issue I see is others being forced to use/own some device/app** simply to be allowed to “exist” within society.

An example of Section 7.3 of the kids school “education app”
He has no choice but to use it .. and all his medical information, homework etc. etc. could be** shared freely with 3rd parties.

The Institution grants us a non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, licence to
copy, transmit, and use the Content, User Content, and any third party
curriculum content uploaded to the System

**I’m not entirely sure how this works… they have forced a 11yr old to accept a contract to sell their medical data with 3rd parties? Is that even legal?

No surprise…

Long-awaited details of the government’s voter ID scheme have now been released, including details of which IDs will be accepted at the polling station. The list contains plenty of options for older voters, but few for younger voters. https://t.co/r0YWFXbztw pic.twitter.com/Ck1gro9e0h

— Electoral Reform Society (@electoralreform) November 17, 2022