I.D. Cards (UK question)

[-=Zyth=-]

Does anybody in the U.K. think that I.D. cards would be a good idea? I would add my own interpretation of how they can be used...They would have our citizenship certificate in them. They would have our DNA map on it. They would have our thumbprint and retinal map on them. Also you would have to swipe your i.d. card to use anything electronic alongside anything else...card payment (as money is on the way out), clocking into work etc that kind of thing....

Now is this too large a burden upon our civil rights or not? Remember you cant have freedom without law...both are paradoxes...

[Dante Hicks]

If introduced, it would be a short amount of time before the police (or whomever) would be able to view your ID on demand. Not having your card on you might become suspicious activity in and of itself. I don't like the idea of being obligated to carry around something, especially since I have a special ability which allows me to lose things instantly.

And money (cash) isn't on the way out.

Also, why the **** would we need our DNA/Retinal map on the card? I can forsee some grand future application of this obviously, but right now strikes me as pointless. To make it even vaguely useful the government would need to have mandatory DNA/Retina scans done on every person in the country, and probably pass this information to various other agencies (even commercial ones) for various reasons.

I don't think the benefits would be that great either, would it? It's not going to stop crime, it might cut fraud by, say, 10% but I don't really care about fraud tbh.

[Gayle29uk]

No, no, no, a thousand times no! ID cards are a bad idea If this discussion takes off I might even come back later and say why.

[mbushell]

I couldn't really care less

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by -=Zyth=-
Does anybody in the U.K. think that I.D. cards would be a good idea? .

yes, but none of them have thought it through in any detail whatsoever.

[Ap0k]

im guessing it wud cost a fortune to get every1 scanned and thingied for one.

put the money into the failing health service instead.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Ap0k
im guessing it wud cost a fortune to get every1 scanned and thingied for one.

put the money into the failing health service instead.

But the introduction of ID cards would completely eradicate 100% of all crime/terrorist attacks overnight, hence reducing the amount of people needing healthcare as a direct result of criminal activities, which would save money in the long run.

[Ap0k]

im completely failing to see the logic behind that...

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Ap0k
im completely failing to see the logic behind that...

And the sarcasm...]

[Snurx]

I have not studied the england case in any detail, but as a principle, i think its wrong and bad. It will not stop the serious crime or fraud, maybe only some off the petty crime, (like graffiti) but it opens up for a massive surveilance off the population, and england allready is bad on that point. (If my mind is correct, London is the most surveilanced city in Europe, yes?)
Also, being forced to carry something around is not good. If you lose it, can you get thrown in custody? If you forget it, can somebody misuse it? etc.

But as i said, i have not studied the england case, so all off the above might be just be ordinary bull****.

[Ap0k]

And the sarcasm...]

clearly what with it being almost 9am (a time i havent seen in a few months at least. i forgot it even existed ) im still a lil slow on the uptake :\

forgive meh?

petty crime, (like graffiti)

GRAFFITI IS NOT A CRIME.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Ap0k
GRAFFITI IS NOT A CRIME.

I think legally, it often is...

Also, I think graffiti is one crime that would definitely be unaffected by ID cards. As I say, I can imagine fraud being reduced (if you needed to present such a card to cash a cheque say) but very little else. It's hardly going to stop armed robberies, is it?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
. It's hardly going to stop armed robberies, is it?

Firearms being outlawed prevents armed robbery.

[Ap0k]

GUNS DONT ROB SHOPS. PEOPLE DO.

[Snurx]

Originally posted by Ap0k

GRAFFITI IS NOT A CRIME.

Leagaly,it is, or, that depends on where you live.

Here in norway, its illigal as hell.

Backjumps are almost impossible, the trains never get out whit paint on, and the walls in are cleaned after about 2 days.
EDIT: Dante, what i meant is, that when you get busted for graffiti, you can easily lie yourself out off it, by claiming other names, different adresses etc, and then being locked up for 24 hours. After that, they need a court order, and they (95% off the time) dont get that for graffiti, so you go free! Whit those ID cards, that become much more difficult, i would belive.
PS! Was there talk about putting GPS system things into them?

[Ap0k]

aaahh, the days of cops and graffiti...

remind meh to make a thread about that later

technically it is illegal yes, i still stand by the fact that it is a supressed art form. no one locks up ppl for sculpting nudes or ****ting in piles. its known as 'modern art'.

bah humbug.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Ap0k
no one locks up ppl for sculpting nudes or ****ting in piles. its known as 'modern art'.

If they shat on someone else's wall they most certainly would be arrested.

Vandals belong in jail.

[Snurx]

Originally posted by Ap0k
aaahh, the days of cops and graffiti...

remind meh to make a thread about that later

technically it is illegal yes, i still stand by the fact that it is a supressed art form. no one locks up ppl for sculpting nudes or ****ting in piles. its known as 'modern art'.

bah humbug.

The sweetness of youth.
I agree that is a supressed art form. But then again, "when they can't controll us, they call us evil".



(http://www.bxma.org/inprojects/ingraffiti/)

[Ap0k]

im not going to go into the difference between 'vandalism' and 'graffiti'...

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Ap0k
im not going to go into the difference between 'vandalism' and 'graffiti'...

The only difference is the object on which its done, theres not really much to go into.

Originally posted by Ap0k
im not going to go into the difference between 'vandalism' and 'graffiti'...

Wise, since its essentially the same (destruction of other people's property).

[Ap0k]

before i go to my lecture i will tak ethis moment in time to point out that not all graffiti is done illegally

*gone*

edit: CONTINUE TO FIGHT FOR TEH CAUSE SNURXEH \o/

[Snurx]

"vandalism
n : willful wanton and malicious destruction of the property of others
van·dal·ism
Willful or malicious destruction of public or private property."


If i take a rock, and throw it throught a window, that window is destroyed. If i take a magick markere, and write "nodrog is leet" on it, is it destroyed?
Also, there are very few graffiti-artist that think about it as destroying, so its not "willful wanton and malicious destruction of the property of others".

The wall, or the train, is not destroyed or broken by spraypaint. The color is changed, nothing more. Its still fully functional.

[pablissimo]

Originally posted by Snurx
"vandalism
n : willful wanton and malicious destruction of the property of others
van·dal·ism
Willful or malicious destruction of public or private property."


If i take a rock, and throw it throught a window, that window is destroyed. If i take a magick markere, and write "nodrog is leet" on it, is it destroyed?
Also, there are very few graffiti-artist that think about it as destroying, so its not "willful wanton and malicious destruction of the property of others".

The wall, or the train, is not destroyed or broken by spraypaint. The color is changed, nothing more. Its still fully functional.

And on the whole looks wank unless they're actually good.

And I don't personally think 'DAVVO IS A GRASS' scrawled across the side of the 8.45 to Preston is particularly fetching.

Originally posted by Ap0k
before i go to my lecture i will tak ethis moment in time to point out that not all graffiti is done illegally

*gone*

Your point:
not all graffity is done illegal
therefore graffiti cannot be illegal.

see the fallacy

(\o/)

Originally posted by Snurx
"vandalism
n : willful wanton and malicious destruction of the property of others
van·dal·ism
Willful or malicious destruction of public or private property."


If i take a rock, and throw it throught a window, that window is destroyed. If i take a magick markere, and write "nodrog is leet" on it, is it destroyed?
Also, there are very few graffiti-artist that think about it as destroying, so its not "willful wanton and malicious destruction of the property of others".

The wall, or the train, is not destroyed or broken by spraypaint. The color is changed, nothing more. Its still fully functional.

But you applied paint to something that is not yours. If I go to your house and paint the walls a godawful shade of pink, how would you call it?

[Snurx]

Originally posted by ÐiSCoRPoRaTioN
But you applied paint to something that is not yours. If I go to your house and paint the walls a godawful shade of pink, how would you call it?

I would call it a ÐiSCo house!

The dudes who are really into graffiti, have a few rules, or codes. The most important (exept for "dont snitch") is that you shall not paint on private property, only buildings and trains that are owned by the publick or a company. If you went to my house and did that, you would do graffiti. But not "graffiti" in the way im talking about. Its in fact quite a big difference, but i will not go into that.

Everybody has a right to infulence the publick space, its not different from a big commerical, is it? It might be ugly, or even illigeal, but these kids are only trying to lighten up a otherwise gray enviroment.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Snurx
The most important (exept for "dont snitch") is that you shall not paint on private property, only buildings and trains that are owned by a company.

are they all stupid, or just most of them?

[Dante Hicks]

Most graffiti is ****e and pointless defacing of property. However, I have sympathy for the "artists" who do it. Being creative and leaving your mark (no pun intended) on the world are two fundamental human urges. I'm sure if you think of every person you know, there will always be some creative project (of whatever kind). If I get the urge to be creative I'll go home and work on a web site, or try to start writing "A Grand Theory of Everything". My friends try to make movies, form bands, write computer games, etc.

Now, for various reasons, there are some whose outlet isn't making a C++ project, it's drawing/writing on walls/buildings or whatever. Aside from the comedy gold that the artists think they are providing, it's still the same urge as my flatmate whose making a low budget movie. Now, perhaps if their "skills" could be utilised, into something more useful and less destructive they wouldn't feel the need to do this. For example, some public spaces could be set aside for the youth of an area to paint on, or whatever. At the moment, the colours/designs on our train stations, libraries, etc aren't really up to the people despite them being public areas.

Of course, there will always be a few morons who write "Aiyash Brown gives big up ting" on the 468 Bus windows. The ****tards.

Originally posted by Snurx


Everybody has a right to infulence the publick space, its not different from a big commerical, is it? It might be ugly, or even illigeal, but these kids are only trying to lighten up a otherwise gray enviroment.

Well, yes, it is different. The items in the public space are owned by someone, be it the government or a company that gets its income through commercial posters. When you spray paint on it (regardless if its pretty or not) without their permission, you essentially spray paint on someone else's property, which I regard as vandalism.

If they want to lighten up the environment they should ask the people, or company, to which the items belong, if they would mind if they'd cheer the lot up.

[Nodrog]

My outlet is carving my name into peoples stomach using a kitchen knife (not innocent people though, just politicians and businessmen). If I do it in really nice patterns can I get called an 'artist' as well and have my hobby compared to that of musicians and computer programmers?

Originally posted by Nodrog
My outlet is carving my name into peoples stomach using a kitchen knife (not innocent people though, just politicians and businessmen). If I do it in really nice patterns can I get called an 'artist' as well and have my hobby compared to that of musicians and computer programmers?

I hear Bill Gates is the antichrist, so, yes =/

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
My outlet is carving my name into peoples stomach using a kitchen knife (not innocent people though, just politicians and businessmen).

No matter how much you try : Human Rights aren't the same as Property Rights.

I think the point that Snurx was trying to make is that in their infantile, juvenille way, these people reject the basis of ownership for public spaces.

If I paint the walls to my home, I am technically vandalising since I have not asked the owner for permission (I am a tenant). Clearly vandalism is a bit more than that, and the context/fair use needs to apply to a certain extent.

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
No matter how much you try : Human Rights aren't the same as Property Rights.

I think the point that Snurx was trying to make is that in their infantile, juvenille way, these people reject the basis of ownership for public spaces.

If I paint the walls to my home, I am technically vandalising since I have not asked the owner for permission (I am a tenant). Clearly vandalism is a bit more than that, and the context/fair use needs to apply to a certain extent.

The space is public. The items put down are not. They have been payed for by the government/city/railway people.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by ÐiSCoRPoRaTioN
The space is public. The items put down are not. They have been payed for by the government/city/railway people.

If you come and put your sofa in my house I'm not going to treat it as if it were your sofa in your house. I'm going to treat it like it was mine. Perhaps these people feel the same way about objects in public spaces. If I go an put a chair down near the bus stop (so people can sit down) while I would hope no-one would smash/steal it, I wouldn't equate (if they did) to them doing it to the chairs in my house.

I don't know, they might just reject the law for the sake of it. But simply getting outraged and saying they all belong in prison without questioning why they do it seems a bit counterproductive. I have never graffiti'd, and neither has any of my group of friends. So I gotta wonder why other people do. Perhaps they're just subhuman monsters, of course.

[ELeeming]

Personnally I'm in favour of ID cards in principle, because I've got nothing to hide. However, I don't think the UK needs an ID card, as our driving lisences already carry a **** load of information. Just make having a driving lisence complusory.

[Snurx]

Originally posted by Nodrog
My outlet is carving my name into peoples stomach using a kitchen knife (not innocent people though, just politicians and businessmen). If I do it in really nice patterns can I get called an 'artist' as well and have my hobby compared to that of musicians and computer programmers?

You would then hurt a person. Do you bleed when somebody writes their "blaze" (or "tag" or "name" or whatever) on a wall? Are you hurt by it?

Originally posted by ÐiSCoRPoRaTioN
Well, yes, it is different. The items in the public space are owned by someone, be it the government or a company that gets its income through commercial posters. When you spray paint on it (regardless if its pretty or not) without their permission, you essentially spray paint on someone else's property, which I regard as vandalism.

If they want to lighten up the environment they should ask the people, or company, to which the items belong, if they would mind if they'd cheer the lot up.

Well, i might have phrased myself better. I have not much sympathy for those who directly go over something else, (for example a poster) but the walls where there is nothing is in my opinion to paint, beacause they are so empty, so cold. Most people who paint on the posters/bulletins are so called "toys", people who have yet to understand what they are doing, and therefore do mistakes. Ofc some other goes over, but in every enviroment there are "black sheep". Or, at least most posters. Some posters, who for example are very sexist, is often gone over, just beacause very many writers are political, even thought they would not admit it had they been give a million.

The problem is, (at least in Norway) that you dont get premission. There is Zero Tolerance. (They use that term, "Nulltoleranse") No goverment funding to anything regarding graffiti, no legal walls anywhere, etc. (Thats in Oslo) So you can not do it legaly.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
No matter how much you try : Human Rights aren't the same as Property Rights.

I think the point that Snurx was trying to make is that in their infantile, juvenille way, these people reject the basis of ownership for public spaces.

If I paint the walls to my home, I am technically vandalising since I have not asked the owner for permission (I am a tenant). Clearly vandalism is a bit more than that, and the context/fair use needs to apply to a certain extent.

Surely an idealogy that states "Only vandalise public places and not private property" is implicitly stating that all property should be privately owned? Taken to its logical extent, smashing up things like publically owned hospitals and schools is "ok", while doing the same to private schools and hospitals would be "wrong".

And yet the same people often claim to hate capitalism. How bizarre!

im all for id cards, aslong as 'they' dont use them to monitor everything we do or buy etc.

[pablissimo]

Originally posted by Snurx
snip

If the 'artists' want to go buy a building, walls and all, and go paint it then fine by me, because they own it.

Public property doesn't mean that 'anyone' can go make it look 'pretty'.

[Snurx]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Surely an idealogy that states "Only vandalise public places and not private property" is implicitly stating that all property should be privately owned? Taken to its logical extent, smashing up things like publically run hospitals and schools is "ok", while doing the same to private schools and hospitals would be "wrong".

No, thats wrong.
By private property, "they" mean for example your house, or your car. Not MacDonald's, thats a company. I dont know how to formulate it good in english, so the joke's on me.

Oh, and very few would ever consider painting a school or a hospital. But the wall behind your local MacDonald is "free for all".

[pablissimo]

Originally posted by Snurx
No, thats wrong.
By private property, "they" mean for example your house, or your car. Not MacDonald's, thats a company. I dont know how to formulate it good in english, so the joke's on me.

Oh, and very few would ever consider painting a school or a hospital. But the wall behind your local MacDonald is "free for all".

Howso? What about a small business owner with one car dealership. That 'fair game'? Still a company.

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
If you come and put your sofa in my house I'm not going to treat it as if it were your sofa in your house. I'm going to treat it like it was mine. Perhaps these people feel the same way about objects in public spaces. If I go an put a chair down near the bus stop (so people can sit down) while I would hope no-one would smash/steal it, I wouldn't equate (if they did) to them doing it to the chairs in my house.

I don't know, they might just reject the law for the sake of it. But simply getting outraged and saying they all belong in prison without questioning why they do it seems a bit counterproductive. I have never graffiti'd, and neither has any of my group of friends. So I gotta wonder why other people do. Perhaps they're just subhuman monsters, of course.

Their reasons are clear. They don't see it as a crime and think they're doing the public a service by cheering up the place. I don't think any of them should be put in jail. They should, however, clean it up or pay for cleaning it up.

Some grafitti is quite nice, actually. But to spraypaint public places without the permission of the owners is still illegal.

i dislike mindless vandalism.

i wholly endorse willfull destruction of property however.

Originally posted by Snurx
You would then hurt a person. Do you bleed when somebody writes their "blaze" (or "tag" or "name" or whatever) on a wall? Are you hurt by it?



Well, i might have phrased myself better. I have not much sympathy for those who directly go over something else, (for example a poster) but the walls where there is nothing is in my opinion to paint, beacause they are so empty, so cold. Most people who paint on the posters/bulletins are so called "toys", people who have yet to understand what they are doing, and therefore do mistakes. Ofc some other goes over, but in every enviroment there are "black sheep". Or, at least most posters. Some posters, who for example are very sexist, is often gone over, just beacause very many writers are political, even thought they would not admit it had they been give a million.

The problem is, (at least in Norway) that you dont get premission. There is Zero Tolerance. (They use that term, "Nulltoleranse") No goverment funding to anything regarding graffiti, no legal walls anywhere, etc. (Thats in Oslo) So you can not do it legaly.

But snurx, its still someone else's property =/

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Snurx
No, thats wrong.
By private property, "they" mean for example your house, or your car. Not MacDonald's, thats a company. I dont know how to formulate it good in english, so the joke's on me.

Oh, and very few would ever consider painting a school or a hospital. But the wall behind your local MacDonald is "free for all".

What about the local paper shop or bakers?

Originally posted by Idi
i dislike mindless vandalism.

i wholly endorse willfull destruction of property however.

Lo idi. Do you have a creditcard?

Originally posted by ÐiSCoRPoRaTioN
Lo idi. Do you have a creditcard?

i have a switch card.

and yes my bank log where i shop
and yes the shop probably logs what i buy

but they do not give that information to the government or collaborate at all

thats the difference!

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Taken to its logical extent, smashing up things like publically owned hospitals and schools is "ok", while doing the same to private schools and hospitals would be "wrong".

Public in this context means two different things. One, it could mean owned by the state or two it could mean for use by the public. Therefore, if the government bans smoking in public, they generally include pubs, cafes, etc, etc depsite the fact these places aren't owned by the state.

There's also an argument that places like McDonalds (although generally a franchise) are owned by a corporation, not an individual. Despite our legal system giving corporations individual rights, they aren't, and so some distrinction could be made between "private" (individual) and "corporate" (group owned), although this strikes me as dubious, since you've got partnerships, private limited companies, publically limited companies, etc, etc. I suspect any graffiti artist would simply carry out a basic guess (as we all do when considering morality) as to whether Company X is "big enough" to be disrespected.

Anyway : smashing up is different from painting. The legal system (for all it's faults) is not so rigid that it considers smashing a wall with a hammer to be the same as someone drawing a flower pattern on it. The motives of the individuals at question, damage done, affects on business/life, attitudes of "victim" and local community, etc, etc would all come up if ever brought before a court.

[Snurx]

Originally posted by pablissimo
Howso? What about a small business owner with one car dealership. That 'fair game'? Still a company.

If I were a artist, i would think twice about it. Some would, some would not. Thats more a personal choice.

Originally posted by ÐiSCoRPoRaTioN
Their reasons are clear. They don't see it as a crime and think they're doing the public a service by cheering up the place. I don't think any of them should be put in jail. They should, however, clean it up or pay for cleaning it up.

Some grafitti is quite nice, actually. But to spraypaint public places without the permission of the owners is still illegal.

That's true, but should it be like that? Did you know that over 50% off all the comerical boards (at least in Oslo, i cant find the source, but its either VG or Dagbladet, and you would probably not undestand that anyways.) are illigal? They dont have premission to set them up, but they dont get thrown in jail, beat up by cops, or get fines that makes them ****ed for the rest off their life's. Graffiti is a weird, up-in-your face type rebelion, its kinda hard to explain it. I agree, it should be illigal, but not in the way it is today.