The new UK government has just wasted many millions of pounds by cancelling the ID cards scheme.

 

I never really supported the scheme, not because of the usual civil liberties groups complaining but simply because I do not trust the government to not screw it up and make life worse for people.

 

Here's a simple suggestion to how it could have been done, and in a useful way. I'm going to send a copy of this to my MP, I'll post any response if I get one.

 

 

Firstly, the cards should simply have a photo and your name on the front, along with possibly your date of birth (or even just the year and/or month). This would allow anyone in low security situations to identify the owner - eg. age verification in a shop.

 

Second, the card must have a serial number printed on it and stored electronically somewhere - eg. on a mag-strip or chip or even RFID (finally, a use for that technology, how amazing...).

 

This number will be tied back to a central database accessible online - even publicly. By default, entering the number into the site would simply provide the same details as what's printed on the card - photo, name etc.

 

However, the site should also have the means to store other data, eg. your address, medical details, phone number etc. This information must be stored in such a way that certain parts are tagged with security levels or such. A login for the site should be available to be acquired by applying to a body (maybe the data-protection body - that already exists after all), this login will give that person/company access to certain "categories" (or "tags") of data, eg:

 

name, photo, age PUBLIC

phone number PRIVATE SHOP PASSWORD

address PRIVATE SHOP

general medical conditions PRIVATE GOV DOCTOR PASSWORD

detailed medical records PRIVATE DOCTOR PASSWORD

criminal record PRIVATE POLICE PASSWORD

 

it should be possible to enable or disable these tags to some degree (for example, I might want a SHOP to have access to my address but not my phone number, or to both). I could even decide to block any particular information from POLICE - in which case they will have to find it out themselves as they do now, of course, by not blocking it it would save time if ever needed).

 

It would even be possible to password protect certain data - even to encrypt it on the server with that password. Then, if someone needs access to the data they need you to enter your password to let them get at it. Of course, you'd want to leave public information available without for speed (ie. if using non-contact readers) - but *you* would be able to make that trade-off.

 

The data should be voluntarily added. In the case of medical information or criminal information it should be added simply because it's already on computer elsewhere and simply using one central database makes life easier. It should be possible to add a flag to disable access via the card system to the data though and provide a seperate serial number for just access to that part of the system for those who want it.

 

The information would need to be verified to be of use obviously, but then it is now anyway - it's not going to be hard to simply take some bills or a driving license to the local tax office or whatever and get them to add the data. You should be able to update the permissions on the data yourself easily. This can either be done via a secure method online, or, to make sure it's very secure simply to it at the same government office - present the card so you can be id'd and when they know it's you then they can allow you to change them. There should also be a password required for editing data.

 

By using a serial number on the card it is revocable. I frequently lose my credit cards so the ability to call a number and know that they are useless immediately is good - the same should be true for an ID card. This is also the reason for holding all data off the card - if the card only contains a serial number there's nothing anyone can get from the card that's any use once the serial number has been invalidated. Of course, anyone using a deactivated card is then immediately suspect. A centralised system allows for easy access control to who has access to the data too - kill a user account and it doesn't matter what they do with the card - it's of no use to them. Given the stupid amounts of money the government put into this stuff they could even just build their own private network to run it.

 

The important thing is that a government backed, secure, guaranteed ID card is actually a good idea. There's always going to be those who don't want one and they can simply not get one, or just not add whatever data they don't want known to the system. By allowing the user to choose what's on the card there can be no civil liberties issues.

 

You could even allow interested parties to provide ideas as to other things that could be added - maybe bank details so you can buy things without needing to carry other cards? By ensuring that this number is marked as requiring a password you've got the current chip-and-pin system along with the fact that the card has your photo on it as extra protection.

 

Now, how this is useful:

 

If you buy something which needs to be delivered you need to provide your address. Assuming that shop had access to level 2 info you could just swipe the card, their system would lookup your address online and save you giving it. Of course, if you hadn't given the address or denied access you can just provide it the old way. Same goes for online shopping - just provide your serial number to have your name, address and possibly even card details loaded automatically - again, only if you've added them, and decided to allow them to be used in that way.

 

If you were stopped on the street by a police officer they could easily verify who you are from the details on the card visually, or, for extra security they could use a handheld terminal for access to the system. If you'd chosen not to provide the details they wanted, or not allow the police access to them, or refuse to enter a password if you've protected them they could just use the old fashioned methods of finding out the information. But, for those of use who aren't scare of the police providing the details means a stop of a few seconds instead of the hassle of waiting for them to verify the information by other means.

 

There are many more examples I'm sure you can think of.

 

Such a system wouldn't even be expensive - you could charge for the cards (they are, after all, *useful* in this scenario) and the back-end could simply be run online or using a VPN. It would also allow the consolidation of many other databases into a single system.

 

A quick question before the long one below:

 

Is it selfish to want to love someone? Sometimes it feels that way - I'm extremely lonely and want to love someone - I know I can (maybe with the odd problem but I loved her 100%) - but is wanting to love someone, to make them happy and to care for them selfish when you want it for yourself as well - you know that it'll make you "happy" too?

 

 

I don't really understand this - what do people actually mean when they say "sorry"? And why does it seem to make things "better"?

 

Now, I'll admit - I say sorry a lot - I understand that people seem to want to hear it but it continually troubles me to say sorry for things I don't understand. For example:

 

Whilst we were together she accused me of being patronising. Firstly, I have no idea what to be patronising actually is (that's one of the other questions I mentioned above - for later). Of course, I apologised (automatic reaction) but it doesn't mean anything - she would never explain what she meant so I couldn't address the problem by trying to not do it.

 

Of course, I was sorry for upsetting her - I couldn't stand doing that but I wasn't sorry for being patronising - a) I didn't know I was doing it and b) I don't understand why being sorry for it is the "answer" - fixing the behaviour is the answer - to stop doing things which were upsetting her.

 

I don't see the "point" in apologies for things such as that. As I say - I didn't want to see her upset but I don't understand why "I'm sorry" is supposed to fix that - it's just words - surely there needs to be an attempt to "rectify" the issue - to make an effort?

 

I've certainly never needed or wanted apologies for anything. All I need is an explanation or understanding for the behaviour: an accident? - accidents happen, for a joke? - fair enough, malicious? - why? I fail to understand how a simple phrase is supposed to "fix" things. Maybe this is related to my inability to hold a grudge.

 

She said as long as I acknowledged that I was patronising she was "happy". Why? she obviously wasn't if it was upsetting her. I hated upsetting her so wanted to understand what I was doing which was causing it - surely that's the way it should be if you love someone - you don't want to hurt them, even inadvertently. I am fully aware that I have problems - partly underlying issues and partly just no "practice" so I needed to know I was doing wrong so I could change - I wanted to change for her - I wanted her to be happy, not that it mattered in the end.

 

One vaguely related point: We used to text each other when we got up (we used to try to text each other all the time - I liked that a lot - it was nice to know she was there and to share her life). Knowing she had sleep problems I always asked how she'd slept and she'd usually ask the same. One day I said that I'd slept badly and she complained that she didn't want to know.

 

Now, I fully understand (and use) the greeting "alright" as "hello" in passing. However - if someone asks me if I'm alright ("alright" vs. "you alright?" or "how are you" mean different things - at least they do to me) in a situation other than in passing (eg someone in a queue, or behind a counter etc) I'll probably tell them the truth - they asked else - they didn't have to, why make the effort if you don't want the answer?. Also, if I'm not paying attention I'll just tell them the truth anyway - unless I consciously think "this person doesn't actually want an answer" they will get one - it's automatic (I can't keep secrets for the same reason - unless I'm making a concious effort to filter what's going on I just tell the truth - it doesn't occur to me that just because I know something other people don't automatically know it - I have to think that through each time)

 

But, we were supposed to be lovers (at least I know I loved her) and every time I asked the question I meant it - I wanted to know how she felt, and if she felt bad if there was anything I could have done (leave her alone for a rest/go over to keep her company/take her out etc. - I can be "sympathetic" in some degree, although I don't see the "point", it seems to help others). I couldn't (and still can't) see the point in asking her how she was and then ignoring the answer - why even ask the question? I tried to explain this to her but she said it was just an excuse and I'd tried to upset her.

 

I cared for her, and never wanted to see her hurt - especially though my own doing.

 

Not that it really matters - I can't see another situation arising where I'm going to be able to "use" any understanding.

 

Thanks to anyone who takes the time to read this and respond.

 

It occurs that I've not actually asked anything here. I guess the question is why? - assuming this is normal (I don't have anything to compare it against) why is this "normal"? Why does saying "sorry" work? And how? - what does it mean to you?