Using Mobile phone only to log in to Doctor

[melmerby]

29 minutes ago, Tim Dubya said:

My surgery in Radstock has been using this system for months and is it far quicker and efficient than it ever was before.

As the context of my original post has now been lost, which system?

[Tim Dubya]

I have no problem whatsoever with I.D. cards, I carry my driving licence with me at all times anyway.  I also wear my two I.D.'s at work, one of which has my DBS number on it, so 'they' already know everything about me.  The other card is a University issued proximity card for door access, cashless vending, library use etc, so they also know where I've been too.

 

I just don't understand the paranoia around national identity cards and find it baffling, unless of course 'we' are a nation of criminals.

 

Edited March 17 by Tim Dubya

[Tim Dubya]

10 minutes ago, melmerby said:

As the context of my original post has now been lost, which system?

 

Logging into the surgery website for online services using a mobile (smart) phone.  Each appears to have a slightly different version but I guess the end result is the same, access to GP services.

 

 

Edited March 17 by Tim Dubya

[cctransuk]

40 minutes ago, Reorte said:

The concept of ID cards is one I find utterly repulsive. Not because I fear misuse, but because I find the whole idea utterly at odds with a basic respect for people and privacy. You have no right whatsoever to know or do or compel anything about any other person unless they are harming you in some way. The same's true of the law (ultimately the authorities are just other people). ID cards are just being tagged and branded in another form.

 

All of which casts no light whatsoever upon the reasons for your abhorence.

 

You are perfectly entitled to your viewpoint, of course - but your reasons are incomprehensible to me; (which is as you would wish, no doubt)!

 

CJI.

[cctransuk]

45 minutes ago, Reorte said:

The concept of ID cards is one I find utterly repulsive. Not because I fear misuse, but because I find the whole idea utterly at odds with a basic respect for people and privacy. You have no right whatsoever to know or do or compel anything about any other person unless they are harming you in some way. The same's true of the law (ultimately the authorities are just other people). ID cards are just being tagged and branded in another form.

 

All of which casts no light whatsoever upon the reasons for your abhorence.

 

You are perfectly entitled to your viewpoint, of course - but your reasons are incomprehensible to me; (which is as you would wish, no doubt)!

 

CJI.

[cctransuk]

46 minutes ago, Reorte said:

The concept of ID cards is one I find utterly repulsive. Not because I fear misuse, but because I find the whole idea utterly at odds with a basic respect for people and privacy. You have no right whatsoever to know or do or compel anything about any other person unless they are harming you in some way. The same's true of the law (ultimately the authorities are just other people). ID cards are just being tagged and branded in another form.

 

All of which casts no light whatsoever upon the reasons for your abhorence.

 

You are perfectly entitled to your viewpoint, of course - but your reasons are incomprehensible to me; (which is as you would wish, no doubt)!

 

CJI.

[cctransuk]

48 minutes ago, Reorte said:

The concept of ID cards is one I find utterly repulsive. Not because I fear misuse, but because I find the whole idea utterly at odds with a basic respect for people and privacy. You have no right whatsoever to know or do or compel anything about any other person unless they are harming you in some way. The same's true of the law (ultimately the authorities are just other people). ID cards are just being tagged and branded in another form.

 

All of which casts no light whatsoever upon the reasons for your abhorence.

 

You are perfectly entitled to your viewpoint, of course - but your reasons are incomprehensible to me; (which is as you would wish, no doubt)!

 

CJI.

[Reorte]

30 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

All of which casts no light whatsoever upon the reasons for your abhorence.

 

You are perfectly entitled to your viewpoint, of course - but your reasons are incomprehensible to me; (which is as you would wish, no doubt)!

Who you are, what you are doing is absolutely no-one else's business whatsoever as long as you're not negatively affecting anyone else. What's so hard to see about ID cards being a fundamental contradiction to that? I'm not saying you have to agree (you can understand someone else's point of view without agreeing with it), but I don't see what's confusing about it.

 

Why would you say "which is as you would wish"?

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, Tim Dubya said:

I have no problem whatsoever with I.D. cards, I carry my driving licence with me at all times anyway.  I also wear my two I.D.'s at work, one of which has my DBS number on it, so 'they' already know everything about me.  

 

I just don't understand the paranoia around national identity cards and find it baffling, unless of course 'we' are a nation of criminals.

 

It's precisely because I'm not a criminal I don't like being treated as a criminal, or potential criminal.

 

It's nothing to do with paranoia. I don't fear misuse of them, but ID cards are a seriously, seriously messed-up concept.

Edited March 17 by Reorte

[Tim Dubya]

1 minute ago, Reorte said:

It's precisely because I'm not a criminal I don't like being treated as a criminal, or potential criminal.

 

It's nothing to do with paranoia. I don't fear misuse of them, but ID cards are a seriously, seriously messed-up concept.

 

Proving who you are rules you out as a criminal, unless of course one is a criminal in the first place.  It'll also save you a trip to the nick for finger printing etc to prove you're not wanted for a crime, should one be under suspicion of such.

 

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Tim Dubya said:

 

Logging into the surgery website for online services using a mobile (smart) phone.  Each appears to have a slightly different version but I guess the end result is the same, access to GP services.

 

 

Up until the change you could log on to the surgery website from any capable device, there you entered your e-mail address, password, random letters from a memorable word, then the recaptcha picture quiz to log on. AFAIC that is plenty of security and more than e-bay or my bank, which don't use recaptcha but do sen one time passcodes.

 

Now you can use a smartphone number only for the one time SMS passcode.

My gripe is that it is only a smartphone number and not landline as well, which can also receive the SMS passcode.

Some other providers do both.

 

Edited March 17 by melmerby

[Reorte]

1 minute ago, Tim Dubya said:

 

Proving who you are rules you out as a criminal, unless of course one is a criminal in the first place.  It'll also save you a trip to the nick for finger printing etc to prove you're not wanted for a crime, should one be under suspicion of such.

Sounds a bit "prove your innocence." If you're not a criminal you should be able to go about your life without ever having to speak to the police (unless you're a victim). Whilst life isn't and never can be perfect the odds of a bit of extra hassle should be low enough that it doesn't make any sense to mitigate against them; if they're not then the police aren't doing their job properly.

 

Anyway how often do the police pick up the wrong person? They pick up suspects who they later eliminate from enquiries often enough, but that's different from just making a mistake.

 

You're wording it as essentially a protection against the authorities. Needing that doesn't sound healthy.

[cctransuk]

11 minutes ago, Reorte said:

It's precisely because I'm not a criminal I don't like being treated as a criminal, or potential criminal.

 

It's nothing to do with paranoia. I don't fear misuse of them, but ID cards are a seriously, seriously messed-up concept.

 

If you are stopped when driving at a police checkpoint, you have to produce your driving licence. You are not being treated like a criminal; simply being asked to eliminate yourself as a person of interest in the investigation being undertaken.

 

I simply cannot understand the objection of an innocent person.

 

CJI.

[melmerby]

3 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

If you are stopped when driving at a police checkpoint, you have to produce your driving licence. You are not being treated like a criminal; simply being asked to eliminate yourself as a person of interest in the investigation being undertaken.

 

I simply cannot understand the objection of an innocent person.

 

CJI.

If you are driving, you need a licence to do so, so producing one is no problem.

It's not a right but a privilege to those that have taken the trouble to take the steps required to do so.

It's no different to showing your membership card to the Gym when you wish to enter but, to me, having an ID card is like licensing someone to exist.

[cctransuk]

4 minutes ago, melmerby said:

If you are driving, you need a licence to do so, so producing one is no problem.

It's not a right but a privilege to those that have taken the trouble to take the steps required to do so.

It's no different to showing your membership card to the Gym when you wish to enter but, to me, having an ID card is like licensing someone to exist.

 

At the end of the day, most of the world seems to manage perfectly well with identity cards - as did the UK during and after WW2.

 

CJI.

[Reorte]

25 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

At the end of the day, most of the world seems to manage perfectly well with identity cards - as did the UK during and after WW2.

 

How about we just agree to disagree and move on?

[cctransuk]

1 minute ago, Reorte said:

 

How about we just agree to disagree and move on?

 

Fine by me.

 

CJI.

[Michael Hodgson]

2 hours ago, Reorte said:

Anyway how often do the police pick up the wrong person? They pick up suspects who they later eliminate from enquiries often enough, but that's different from just making a mistake.

 

You're wording it as essentially a protection against the authorities. Needing that doesn't sound healthy.

 

If they pick up innocent suspects they later eliminate from enquiries , clearly either they are indeed making mistakes or they're simply going on fishing expeditions.  Which is the same reason they aren't supposed to search your home without first explaining to the magistrates that they need a warrant, and why the "Sus law" had to be repealed.

 

Whilst I respect the integrity of the majority of individual police officers, and the personal courage of many who go well beyond the call of duty to save others, there are still too many "rotten apples", too many instances of a "canteen culture" collective attitude towards certain categories of people, and it seems to me perfectly reasonable of ethnic minorities to continue to mistrust the police.  In the circumstances, they shouldn't be given powers that are easily abused.

[Tim Dubya]

3 hours ago, Reorte said:

You're wording it as essentially a protection against the authorities. Needing that doesn't sound healthy.

 

Nope.

[Reorte]

29 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

If they pick up innocent suspects they later eliminate from enquiries , clearly either they are indeed making mistakes or they're simply going on fishing expeditions.

Although I agree with the general thrust of your post on this, sometimes they will indeed pick up innocent suspects. That's an inevitable part of policing - if they didn't it would mean that they're always correctly arresting the guilty party first time, which although ideal clearly isn't possible. They're doing their job if the grounds of suspicion are sufficient enough that the risk of arrest for an innocent is sufficiently low. It's like the searching you mentioned - sometimes an innocent's house will be searched, even when everything has been done properly. If that wasn't the case, if they could always be certain about searching the right house, it would mean that they already had enough evidence to go to trial and wouldn't need the search anyway.

Edited March 17 by Reorte

[phil-b259]

8 hours ago, Welly said:

Suppose you get mugged and the criminal has taken your home address and other details from your compulsory ID card in your wallet - will you be okay with that?

 

Seeing as I carry round a photo ID driving licence in my wallet all the time  (and no I’m not going to the bother of putting it in there every time I am going to drive a motor vehicle - nor waste my time presenting it at a police station because I got stopped driving while not having it with me) then, yes I am ‘OK’ with that possibility as you put it.

 

8 hours ago, Welly said:

 

Suppose you forget your wallet with your compulsory ID card inside it and a police officer asks demands your ID card just because - will you be OK with that?

 

That assumes whatever regime is put in place doesn’t have a  procedure to deal with that - maybe something like you have two weeks to present yourself to a Police station with your ID, which is exactly what happens if you cannot produce your driving license when stopped by the Police when driving a motor vehicle.

 

 

 

Edited March 17 by phil-b259

[melmerby]

As usual we seemed to have strayed off piste compared to my original gripe!😄

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, melmerby said:

As usual we seemed to have strayed off piste compared to my original gripe!😄

Thats RMweb for you.

 

But it’s also what makes it an interesting forum to a degree - more human and less robot like if you will.

Edited March 17 by phil-b259

[woodenhead]

The Mil and Fil, both elderly, recently had to apply for their first and only passports.

 

Why? Because they needed to prove who they were to a solicitor for some business that actually did not need a solicitor (but they wouldn't listen to me or their daughter).

 

£140 to prove they were themselves and then the rest....

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

Seeing as I carry round a photo ID driving licence in my wallet all the time  (and no I’m not going to the bother of putting it in there every time I am going to drive a motor vehicle - nor waste my time presenting it at a police station because I got stopped driving while not having it with me) then, yes I am ‘OK’ with that possibility as you put it.

I've had to present my driving licence to the police zero times in the thirty years I've been driving. Whilst I can't rule out the possibility of it happening the frequency that it does is low enough that any hassle involved even without having it on me is too negligible in the grand scheme of things to care about.