Talk:UK Home Secretary announces ID card pilot launch

Digging on this
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/jgd1000/ProcIEEEnov2006Daugman.pdf Randomness of IrisCodes: Results From 200 Billion Iris Pair Comparisons
 * Probing the Uniqueness and

"For example, in the U.K. with a national population of about 60 million, an Ball-against-all[ comparison of IrisCodes (totaling about 1015 pairings) as envisioned to detect any multiple identities when issuing the proposed biometric identity cards, could be performed using a decision threshold as high as 0.22 without expecting to make any accidental false matches. At this threshold, the false nonmatch rate, using today’s better iris cameras (assuming good acquisition and cooperative subjects) would be below 1%. In everyday biometric transactions in which an identity is first asserted and then verified without exhaustive database search, matches with a very forgiving Hamming distance as high as about 0.32 could be accepted safely."


 * I'm trying to work out what this means. If I understand correctly, this is saying that it could miss around 1 in 100 people you wanted to catch. Can someone put this better, or show me where I'm wrong? --Brian McNeil / talk 11:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Interview with Jim Killock, ORG spokesman
Jim Killock is the spokesman for the UK-based Open Rights Group. Their press contact has offered me an interview this afternoon - I need questions!

Assuming the Open Rights Group is opposed to the ID card scheme, what are the top reasons not to implement it?

With a £30 pricetag, do you expect the Manchester pilot to have any significant uptake?

Does the issuing of these cards via outlets such as post offices where wages are low open an avenue for falsified registrations?

Are you concerned that airport staff could be effectively forced to have these cards, due to needing them to apply for airport passes onto the apron and runway?

Does ORG trust the Government with a database of 60 million people's details?


 * Add questions above. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Scratch this. :-( Got an answer back that ORG are not doing press on the issue.
 * Almost the same questions sent to No2ID. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Michael Parker of No2ID replied...
 * Does No2ID trust the Government with a database of 60 million people's

details?
 * I would say "Not as far as I could throw them", but then it would be easy

to download 60m peoples' details onto a CD and then throw that quite far...
 * There are other quotes, and info at http://www.no2id.net/IDSchemes/whyNot --Brian McNeil / talk 16:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Original Reporting Notes
Hit a lot of people with emails, only promptly got a response from No2ID. These are available on request and have been forwarded to scoop to permit any accredited reporter to confirm the accuracy of the article. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please correct
Editprotected

"BALPA general secretary, Jim McAuslan, emphasised some of the concerns of the association's members, "Like every other citizen, they ask themselves what will happen to the data they are coerced into providing; whether it will it be safe, whose hands might it fall into, and what might they do with the data?" As do many of the ID card scheme's detractors, he made the Orwellian comparison, "Our members increasingly have a sense that a line is being crossed in the relationship between state and citizen; a sense that Big Brother knows best.""

A matter of grammar. --Quest for Truth (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Hmm, interesting because it is a direct quote as published here (last paragraph), but yes it is a grammatical error on someone's part. I removed, but put in a note. --SVTCobra 00:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, this is the way the quote was written on several websites, not just that particular source, so I don't think it's a typo. Maybe adding a "[sic]" instead might be more appropriate? Tempodivalse [talk]  00:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * [sic] should be used. I have reverted another correction to Egyptian archaeologists announce discovery of marble statue and 132 new sites by this user and warned about editing quotes. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

editprotected

Please add Category:Greater Manchester to category list. Rayboy8 (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Brian McNeil / talk 15:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)