(, Tue 7 Jul 2009, 11:16, archived)
so that the next government won't legally be able to pull out of it, which is thoroughly democratic of them.
(, Tue 7 Jul 2009, 11:17, archived)
government. If you had a business, you wouldn't invest in staff and equipment to make & maintain the system if there was a chance the next government would scrap it, would you?
(, Tue 7 Jul 2009, 11:19, archived)
of course I don't blame the companies so much for going for the business deal.
(, Tue 7 Jul 2009, 11:21, archived)
(, Tue 7 Jul 2009, 11:31, archived)
On one hand, I don't like the idea of being forced to carry something around with me just so I can prove who I am to people
But on the other hand I see the Scandinavian countries and it makes hopping between nations quite easy. They often don't even have passports.
I don't know.
(, Tue 7 Jul 2009, 11:18, archived)
with how secure my information is, and that I have to pay to carry one.
(, Tue 7 Jul 2009, 11:23, archived)
but the way it's being set up seems to be way over the top, and far too vulnerable.
The fact that the maximum penalty for not informing them of a change of address is £2000 makes me wonder exactly who this is really supposed to benefit.
If it was entirely voluntary, if it wasn't tied to a centralised database containing everything about you, if they didn't demand to know so much frankly irrelevant crap (including keeping a permanent record of every time you ever use the card for anything), I might have been tempted to get one because I could use some sort of ID. But this thing? No way.
(, Tue 7 Jul 2009, 11:25, archived)