Fingerprint scan for you to claim benefits, would you object?

nipplenuts wrote: »

The scanners do not record a fingerprint.

Then how would such a system work?

The scanner would be responsible for verification of the biometric data in my fingerprint, verification between the scanned fingerprint and..what?

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Wouldn't photo ID suffice?

You would think so. But it requires human validation and people often don't look very like any of their passport-style photos, and to a non-familiar observer it's very easy to confuse family members. I could easily use one of my brother's ID for example and anyone who didn't know us wouldn't be able to say with any kind of certainty that it wasn't me in the photo. This is the kind of fraud that's going on. Constantly.
Some clerks just aren't even bothered enough to check the photo ID beyond hair colour and skin tone. (i.e. a brief glance).

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

People on the dole should be more concerned about it being scrapped and those kicked out on the streets like most Eastern European countries. :eek:

We're a centre-left country. We love our capitalism, but we don't agree with leaving our most vulnerable people out in the cold. Look at what happened last year when the government attempted to do something as small as means test the medical card for OAPs. While we give out about dole cheats and the like, very few of the electorate would stand for having social welfare eliminated completely.

Joey the lips wrote: »

Commercial organisations such as banks typically do not try to authenticate the identity of a person, but rather the validity of a transactions (e.g. by signature or PIN) due to the acknowledged difficulty in reliably identifying an individual in a fraud proof and convenient manner. In otherwords. If the cards and signature match. The onus is on you to prove you did not take out the money. Sound familular to anyone!

This is not the issue, there are multiple ways of carrying out ID fraud, one person "stealing" someone else's dole is only a small part of it. Most ID fraud occurs where all parties are fully aware of the fraud but allow it to occur regardless.

Cards with centralised database could be used to track anyone's movements and private life, thus endangering privicy. The proposed British ID card (see next section) will involve a series of linked databases, to be managed by the private sector. Managing disparate linked systems using a range of institutions and any number of personnel is alleged to be a security disaster in the making.

Depends on how the architecture is structured. Any such "linked" system would likely limit the amount and type of information accessible by any single individual, meaning that the potential exposure is limited.
If you're concerned about your movements being tracked, then be more concerned about the ATM & credit card in your pocket. The issuing institution has access to enough information to trace your general movements as you take out cash and make purchases (even online ones). And they're private.

A requirement to carry an identity card/Finger print at all times can lead to the inconvenience of arbitrary requests from card controllers (such as the police). This can lead to functionality creep whereby carrying a card becomes de facto if not de jure compulsory, as in the case of Social security numbers in the USA and RSI numbers over here, which are now widely used as ID.

"Numbers" are used as ID because they're much easier. A number can be unique, names and addresses aren't always. It's a fundamental of data storage and processing that every individual object in your database must have a unique identifier, and this makes it easy to refer to when you want to find the information on it. Every citizen of the country needs to be identified, to do otherwise is anarchy. A system of identification is not in itself inherently wrong, it's all about how that identification is used.

In many cases, other forms of documentation such as a drivers licence, passport serve a similar function on a more limited scale, and thus an ID card is not needed.

This is a red herring. Many people do not have or carry driving licences or passports.

To a certain extent any measures like these are a "beggars can't be choosers" scenario. If they introduce this and you want social welfare, then suck it up.

However as pointed out, it's likely that the cost and effort to implement such a system will far outstrip any fraud. It also doesn't take into account that ID fraud is only one type of social welfare scam - and I would hazard a guess that it makes up a small proportion of all fraud. Mandatory ID doesn't combat the issue of people fraudulently claiming benefits they're not entitled to - disability benefit and single parent allowance being the two that are most commonly abused.

Knackers would be cutting off there fingertips to get there booze money if they brought this in!!!

But its still a good idea!

I've never heard of anything as ridiculous in my life.

The issue is not, nor ever has been WHO was claiming benefits, but whether they're entitled to it.

Typical, spend millions on something thats not needed, but have everyone pay more tax to pay for it...
I'm pretty sure 30mln could be better spent elsewhere - like maybe cleaning up the welfare system in the first place.

Zynks wrote: »

About the storage of personal data, the ID cards could be implemented without the data being stored at government or third party servers. The data can be encrypted and stored in the chip itself, so the system would confirm if your fingerprint matches what is in the ID card's chip.

I would be in favour of such a system.

If the data wasn't stored, then what would happen if they were 'lost'? Thats more ridiculous than the fingerprinting TBH.

The Gov already store as much data as they need about each and every one of us.

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

If the data wasn't stored, then what would happen if they were 'lost'? Thats more ridiculous than the fingerprinting TBH.

If the card is lost, it is useless. To issue a new card would be very simple. I don't see the issue.

Guys, were you watching Primetime last night? Some estimations put SW fraud at up to €3 bn per year, or 15% of the total claims. One common practice is for foreigners leaving the country to sell or rent their PPS, so many people are claiming on two different IDs.... and the reporter himself got a second PPS for himself with fake information.

Except for the ones benefiting from the fraud, I would assume any sensible person would agree something needs to be done. I agree this method I am suggesting will not be very cheap and that whatever is done at the end will involve paperwork.

So, we agree any solution will be labour intensive and there will be costs associated. Does anyone have a cheaper idea? Just saying this is an expensive solution without showing an alternative doesn't really do it, does it?