Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Da Boss wrote:
Hunt has been telling the French and the Germans to tell Barnier to concede things to the UK or else it will all be very bad.

Aside from the fact that the French are among the hardest of hardliners, this is unbelievable because it shows that Hunt still does not understand that the EU is not controlled by France and Germany, all the other members get a say and can veto any deal.

Ah yes. Do as we tell you or it's going to be bad. And uk thinks it can boss around...why?

Want eu benefit's, play by our rules. Don't play, feel free but then go out properly


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

It is already illegal to not carry an ID here in the Netherlands. It is far from being a big infringement on personal freedom. it is just something you put in your phone or wallet and never think about again.

OK so you can be fined, arrested etc for just being somewhere where you want to be (excepting some sensitive areas) simply because you don't have an piece of plastic? How is that not a restriction on personal freedom? The ability of the state to track where you are at any one time simply because they can ask you to evidence that ID?

What is the purpose of an ID card then?

Our view of tracking is quite different then. Rarely being asked to show results in sample pattern that doesn't really show anything. For tracking that's worthless. And i suppose without id card you would be lying to police who you are to prevent their tracking then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Why should someone have to prove who they are if they break their leg whilst walking in the peak district etc?

Police don't ask id for breaking legs. And hospital prolly wants to know where to send the bill so unrelated 3rd party doesn't get bill for your hospital trip

I have no problem with an ID card per se; it’s fundamentally little different to a driving licence (and would ideally replace that).

I had a real issue with the previous ID card proposal that Labour tried to impose, because of the monolithic government database that they were trying to build in the background. A) I have no faith in the government being able to keep something that extensive secure, B) I don’t trust the government (or individuals in it) not to abuse having all of the information on you, ever, in one place and C) all previous evidence for government computer projects suggests that they would have poured billions into it and never got it working satisfactorily anyway.

If we were to have an ID card, it should be kept simple; name, address, D.O.B. and the ID number. Everything else should be kept on their own systems, which can then just reference the number.

We don't have address in our card though that data is elsewhere. Keeps from having to get new one every time you move

Wow. And I thought Russians were paranoid towards their government...
What kind of crimes did the British government commit to make its people so paranoid?

General Incompetency.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

What kind of crimes did the British government commit to make its people so paranoid?

Nothing.

Then one has to remember that we're talking about a people where (allegedly) the majority decided that it would be a good idea to ruin their own country for the foreseeable future for no real reason other than being able to say "at least I'm pulling the trigger myself" while the rest of us wonder why they're aiming a gun at their own head in the first place.

For the sake of the UK, I really hope you'll get a second referendum once it's clearly laid out what leaving the EU really means for the country and it's people. No one really wants to see you guys crash and burn (except possibly yourselves...)

So seems uk hasn#t ruled out national parks as options on where to put radioactive waste from nuclear plants. Extra excitement for park visitors?-)

tneva82 wrote:
So seems uk hasn#t ruled out national parks as options on where to put radioactive waste from nuclear plants. Extra excitement for park visitors?-)

It goes well together with the nerve agents dumped in city parks. Gives some variation.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Cruxeh wrote:


You seem to misunderstand a few things about how that "piece of plastic" works in practice, at least in the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, a police officer can not suddenly stop you and demand to see your ID card. The police officer has to have an actual need to know the identity of the person he is dealing with, and he has to be able to show this need existed afterwards. There have even been given clear examples of when a police officer can ask you for your ID, and when they can not. And no, a "suspicion" that you are not carrying an ID does not warrant a police officer asking you to show it.

Then I think we are talking at cross purposes. What is the point of *having* to always carry ID on you (and illegal not to do so) if it isn't enforceable?

Because it is enforceable the moment you find yourself in a situation where the police can ask you for your ID? And because you would rather not get another fine added on top of the one you are already going to get?

ATM the police can ask you for your driving licence in the event of a car crash, and you can say it's at home and you will present it at the nearest police station within 24 hours.

You are not legally required to carry it with you. Though I think most drivers do, since it is very conveniently sized and can be used to exchange insurance details.

ID cards could be handled the same way.

At the moment, if you need to prove your UK citizenship you need to carry your passport or birth certificate. People are being asked more often to present these documents thanks to the Tories' plan to create a "hostile environment" for immigrants.

However I think this is all a digression. The last time the government trialled ID cards it was an expensive disaster. There is no way they will manage to implement a scheme in the next five years at least. Therefore we should concentrate on other ways to solve the problem of citizenship after Brexit.

Or better, avoid the problem entirely by cancelling Brexit.

Well cancelling isn't going to happen so better idea is to prepare for incoming no deal wrexit

tneva82 wrote:
We don't have address in our card though that data is elsewhere. Keeps from having to get new one every time you move

I still have the address on my parents' home on my ID card even though you're supposed to update it every time you move, and it's been something like 18 years, 2 ID cards and 5 different addresses since I moved.

It's not the cost (IIRC it's 14 euro), but the PITA of asking for an appointment, etc. and in any case the number is all you need to ID yourself.

 Whirlwind wrote:

What is the purpose of an ID card then?

A unique, government-issued number to be able to identify yourself to anyone who needs to know and you are actually you. To open an account or get a credit card, cash a cheque, utilities, vote, have a driving license or passport issued, enroll on higher education, take up employment, sign any kind of contract etc. the only acceptable way to ID yourself is the ID card or any other forms of ID which share the number (passport and driving license contain that number, too).

There's a reason why identity theft/fraud is much rarer in countries with an ID card system.

It'd kill off this UK garbage aboit utility bills too, which let parents buy their kids access into better schools.

tneva82 wrote:

Police don't ask id for breaking legs. And hospital prolly wants to know where to send the bill so unrelated 3rd party doesn't get bill for your hospital trip

That really is merging two points that wasn't intended if that is how it has been interpreted. Specifcally Disciple of Fate commented that in the Netherlands

The use of it is huge, you need it in education, healthcare and banks etc. Without an ID card you would basically be locked out of vital services.

If it just a bill then surely another form of documentation would be more useful (e.g. insurance). Although this is conjecture on a point as I don't know how the Netherlands manage their health service. Still, whether you can pay or not, you can be denied a public service simply for not having that ID.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cruxeh wrote:

Because it is enforceable the moment you find yourself in a situation where the police can ask you for your ID? And because you would rather not get another fine added on top of the one you are already going to get?

And what use is that to the event at hand. As pointed out why can't you just present the relevant evidence at a later point (e.g. I have my driving licence to show that I am legally allowed to drive). An ID doesn't prove that you can drive. All it is saying is who you are which goes back to the earlier point as to what is the point of making it illegal to not have ID if all it is there to do is stop you being fined?

At this point I will introduce a highly relevant article from The Guardian, about the "hostile environment".

In the UK now, you need to prove your identity and immigration status to open a bank account, start a new job, access health services, attend a school or university, rent a flat, claim social security, or drive a car.

This is getting pretty Big Brotherish.

jouso wrote:


A unique, government-issued number to be able to identify yourself to anyone who needs to know and you are actually you. To open an account or get a credit card, cash a cheque, utilities, vote, have a driving license or passport issued, enroll on higher education, take up employment, sign any kind of contract etc. the only acceptable way to ID yourself is the ID card or any other forms of ID which share the number (passport and driving license contain that number, too).

There's a reason why identity theft/fraud is much rarer in countries with an ID card system.

Is there evidence for this assertion? If IDs were the panacea for all fraud then it shouldn't happen at all. I can find an article back from 2012 about identity fraud

http://ig-legacy.ft.com/content/8423e214-0d4d-11e2-99a1-00144feabdc0#axzz5Muf6nAzd

and yes the UK does have the largest percentage (24%) by population of identity fraud, however conversely one of the lowest amounts per person that gets stolen on average (£1076). However some of those countries with IDs (Germany, Italy etc) have the highest amounts stolen on average per person (£28,666, £13180) even though the number of people affected is lower (15% and 14% respectively). Therefore from a value perspective these countries with ID cards have a much larger fraud problem then the UK does. I would postulate that the ID cards actually make things worse. People trust the ID card system so implicitly that when someone does get those details then they can run rampant on someones account because it is unquestioned. Whereas by not having ID cards people require multiple forms of evidence to say who you are for larger value items especially and hence the system is much more effective at stopping these types of activities. So hence the assertion that ID cards help prevent identity fraud is questionable.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:
It'd kill off this UK garbage aboit utility bills too, which let parents buy their kids access into better schools.

Not sure what you are referencing to here? But I don't have children (thank goodness) but for my brother's niece they have to put forward three schools of preference and then the local authority makes a determination based on the overall demand. Generally the nearer your home address is of the child the more likely you are to get into that school. I'm not sure how an ID card helps with the problem that better schools generally result in higher local house prices which then means you get children that are more driven and the cycle repeats. I'm not sure how ID cards stops this?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
At this point I will introduce a highly relevant article from The Guardian, about the "hostile environment".

In the UK now, you need to prove your identity and immigration status to open a bank account, start a new job, access health services, attend a school or university, rent a flat, claim social security, or drive a car.

This is getting pretty Big Brotherish.

They are basically trying to make the population be the immigration system for them. Trying to transfer the Tory governments bigoted views by forcing the rest of the population to action it on their behalf. I wonder how many people tend to ignore these rules out of a point of principle. I know I would.

 Whirlwind wrote:

And what use is that to the event at hand. As pointed out why can't you just present the relevant evidence at a later point (e.g. I have my driving licence to show that I am legally allowed to drive). An ID doesn't prove that you can drive. All it is saying is who you are which goes back to the earlier point as to what is the point of making it illegal to not have ID if all it is there to do is stop you being fined?

Why can't you just present the relevant evidence at a later point? Simple. What is to stop you from saying this, only to follow it up by not showing up at all?

 Cruxeh wrote:

Why can't you just present the relevant evidence at a later point? Simple. What is to stop you from saying this, only to follow it up by not showing up at all?

Except that doesn't happen. For those people that have been in an accident and are asked to return with the driving licence then people do this anyway as they want to evidence that they weren't acting illegally. If there is suspicion you are acting illegally then you will be arrested anyway (e.g. by dangerous driving) at the time. Why make someone a criminal for simply not having ID on them even if no suggestion of a criminal act was undertaken to result in that request for an ID?

Maybe people in the Netherlands are less trustworthy than in the UK? (joke only!)

 Whirlwind wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Police don't ask id for breaking legs. And hospital prolly wants to know where to send the bill so unrelated 3rd party doesn't get bill for your hospital trip

That really is merging two points that wasn't intended if that is how it has been interpreted. Specifcally Disciple of Fate commented that in the Netherlands

The use of it is huge, you need it in education, healthcare and banks etc. Without an ID card you would basically be locked out of vital services.

If it just a bill then surely another form of documentation would be more useful (e.g. insurance). Although this is conjecture on a point as I don't know how the Netherlands manage their health service. Still, whether you can pay or not, you can be denied a public service simply for not having that ID.

Execpt it won't because your insurance card in the NL which hospitals use has the same citizen ID code on it as your ID. So by having an insurance card they know you have an ID so they can operate based on that unless they don't trust you're actually the owner of said insurance card and ask for ID to verify. To get insurance you need that personal ID card for its citizen code.

Again, you won't be denied service, but you need it to register at your GP and show it for insurance purposes. You can just go to any doctor or hospital in the UK and never show any paperwork? You just seem to take issue with the form our paperwork takes, whicj is an ID card which translates into an insurance pass for main use in healthcare.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Execpt it won't because your insurance card in the NL which hospitals use has the same citizen ID code on it as your ID. So by having an insurance card they know you have an ID so they can operate based on that unless they don't trust you're actually the owner of said insurance card and ask for ID to verify. To get insurance you need that personal ID card for its citizen code.

So effectively it is used as a control that you have the financial means to support any health issues. I suppose then that comes down to my 'disrespect' for a system that requires an insurance based health system. In the end it comes down to different perspectives. You should not need to evidence who you are to obtain access to education, health and so forth. If you are ill, you are ill and should be treated as such. If you are child you should be educated as such, etc. So as a question what happens if you don't have that ID when you arrive at the hospital?

You can just go to any doctor or hospital in the UK and never show any paperwork?

Yes you don't have to show paperwork to get medical treatment in the UK. If you arrive at Accident and Emergency they will treat you regardless. You only have to register at a GP because they only cover certain catchment areas but you are not obligated to show ID (or wasn't last time I registered anyway). However if you aren't registered you can still go to a walk in doctors to get looked at. The only reason you register at a GP is so that they can keep all your medical records together and have a full history of your medical treatment (and any reactions - e.g. allergic to penicillin). there is a slight proviso in that the NHS in theory is meant to ensure the costs for foreign nationals is charged to the relevant countries but that is more an issue with the Tory party's and certain elements of the population bigotry and paranoia that we are overwhelmed by 'NHS tourists' (which we are not).

You just seem to take issue with the form our paperwork takes, whicj is an ID card which translates into an insurance pass for main use in healthcare.

No, it is not a specific attack against the Netherlands. I have an opposition to ID cards overall. It just happens that you started talking about your system. It's not an issue specifically with your country's system.

ID could have protected the Windrush immigrants from the Hostile Environment. It is not all bad.

Polling suggests Boris Johnson is the most popular choice for Tory leader after May. You know Johnson will make his move now, no matter what.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Cruxeh wrote:

Because it is enforceable the moment you find yourself in a situation where the police can ask you for your ID? And because you would rather not get another fine added on top of the one you are already going to get?

And what use is that to the event at hand. As pointed out why can't you just present the relevant evidence at a later point (e.g. I have my driving licence to show that I am legally allowed to drive). An ID doesn't prove that you can drive. All it is saying is who you are which goes back to the earlier point as to what is the point of making it illegal to not have ID if all it is there to do is stop you being fined?

Because the ID gives proof of who you are if you don't have things like a drivers license? For example if you get on the train and refuse to buy a ticket, they ID you so the fine gets put on your name. Similar a lot of government buildings require you to have an access pass you can only get in exchange for an ID. Banks and insurance companies want to see it as proof that its you. Its proof that you are who you are and streamlines a lot of services that already requested your citizen code to begin with. In a lot of cases a drivers license will do, unless it government services or you lack a drivers license.

 Whirlwind wrote:
As pointed out why can't you just present the relevant evidence at a later point (e.g. I have my driving licence to show that I am legally allowed to drive).

Because that relies on the police being confident you are who you say you are. Producing documents later means I can claim to be you and then not produce your ID within 24 hours and be untraceable.

Plus it just adds another layer of beurocracy.

I'd be all for making it a legal requirement to be in possession of license and insurance docs when driving. Especially since driving licenses are credit card sized for anyone who's renewed theirs in the last 20 years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:
It'd kill off this UK garbage aboit utility bills too, which let parents buy their kids access into better schools.

Not sure what you are referencing to here? But I don't have children (thank goodness) but for my brother's niece they have to put forward three schools of preference and then the local authority makes a determination based on the overall demand. Generally the nearer your home address is of the child the more likely you are to get into that school. I'm not sure how an ID card helps with the problem that better schools generally result in higher local house prices which then means you get children that are more driven and the cycle repeats. I'm not sure how ID cards stops

You just need to produce some utility bills as proof of address. So to get into a better school you just need to buy some utility bills in your name at an appropriate address. This seems to be usually done by offering to pay someone else's bill if they put it in your name.

You can't do that with an ID card.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Execpt it won't because your insurance card in the NL which hospitals use has the same citizen ID code on it as your ID. So by having an insurance card they know you have an ID so they can operate based on that unless they don't trust you're actually the owner of said insurance card and ask for ID to verify. To get insurance you need that personal ID card for its citizen code.

So effectively it is used as a control that you have the financial means to support any health issues. I suppose then that comes down to my 'disrespect' for a system that requires an insurance based health system. In the end it comes down to different perspectives. You should not need to evidence who you are to obtain access to education, health and so forth. If you are ill, you are ill and should be treated as such. If you are child you should be educated as such, etc. So as a question what happens if you don't have that ID when you arrive at the hospital?

We have a very minor insurance system (its a public/private mix) and it costs you almost nothing as the government almost fully reimburses the basic cost if you can't afford it (with support its about 10 euros a month, which means that those who earn more contribute more in taxes to allow the government to support the insurance of those who earn less, its on a sliding income scale, you get more government benefits if you really can't afford it though). So no, everybody has the financial means because having a health insurance is mandatory and you can get government support for it. Again, do you need zero paperwork to go to school or the hospital in the UK? They just let you access all those services without any verification?

Again if you don't have the ID on you they will still help cause they can't refuse you, because they can always request your info in their system, with your GP or the insurer. You need to let go of the idea they won't help because we have stated that isn't the case. I lost my insurance card for a while and they had no issue helping me when I named my insurer without having to show ID.

 Whirlwind wrote:

You can just go to any doctor or hospital in the UK and never show any paperwork?

Yes you don't have to show paperwork to get medical treatment in the UK. If you arrive at Accident and Emergency they will treat you regardless. You only have to register at a GP because they only cover certain catchment areas but you are not obligated to show ID (or wasn't last time I registered anyway). However if you aren't registered you can still go to a walk in doctors to get looked at. The only reason you register at a GP is so that they can keep all your medical records together and have a full history of your medical treatment (and any reactions - e.g. allergic to penicillin). there is a slight proviso in that the NHS in theory is meant to ensure the costs for foreign nationals is charged to the relevant countries but that is more an issue with the Tory party's and certain elements of the population bigotry and paranoia that we are overwhelmed by 'NHS tourists' (which we are not).

They will treat you here regardless to. So you having to register at the GP is basically the same here, as your GP always refers you to the hospital. Of course you can get urgent treatment, but our healthcare is set up slighlty different, so they do want to have your insurance information. If you work here as a foreigner you are obligated by law to get a dutch insurance like the rest of us, but if you're on vacation you use your own insurance or the EU version.

 Whirlwind wrote:

You just seem to take issue with the form our paperwork takes, whicj is an ID card which translates into an insurance pass for main use in healthcare.

No, it is not a specific attack against the Netherlands. I have an opposition to ID cards overall. It just happens that you started talking about your system. It's not an issue specifically with your country's system.

I didn't say it was an attack on the NL. I said its an issue with our paperwork (which is quite similar around the EU). ID is basically a streamlined piece of paperwork that allows you to access a large range of services without any hassle, as well as allowing you to travel abroad. It used to be that a lot of places had the identification requirement before we got a national ID and it was an absolute mess. Its less fraud sensitive as well as others have said.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Cruxeh wrote:

Why can't you just present the relevant evidence at a later point? Simple. What is to stop you from saying this, only to follow it up by not showing up at all?

Except that doesn't happen. For those people that have been in an accident and are asked to return with the driving licence then people do this anyway as they want to evidence that they weren't acting illegally. If there is suspicion you are acting illegally then you will be arrested anyway (e.g. by dangerous driving) at the time. Why make someone a criminal for simply not having ID on them even if no suggestion of a criminal act was undertaken to result in that request for an ID?

Maybe people in the Netherlands are less trustworthy than in the UK? (joke only!)

I mentioned earlier that there are situations where the police is not going to ask you for your ID. In this case they are obviously going to ask for your drivers license, which conveniently enough also counts as an ID according to the law. And in the Netherlands, driving around in a car without your drivers license is dumb for more than one reason anyway. Not only would that leave you open to a nice 95 euros fine for not having your license with you, but if you get into an accident while driving you run a real risk that the insurance company will not cover any damage. (granted, this last bit does partially depend on the specific circumstances of the accident.)

It's also important to note that not having some form of ID on you in the Netherlands is merely a violation, and thus on its own only worthy of a fine. It's a small, but important distinction to make, and I suspect I was not clear enough on that. (If that is the case, my apology for that!)

Quite possible that we are less trustworthy!

On a bit of a side note, I love what the brexit does with the value of the quid! Never expected to get these Crypt Ghouls so cheap.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Cruxeh wrote:

Why can't you just present the relevant evidence at a later point? Simple. What is to stop you from saying this, only to follow it up by not showing up at all?

Except that doesn't happen. For those people that have been in an accident and are asked to return with the driving licence then people do this anyway as they want to evidence that they weren't acting illegally. If there is suspicion you are acting illegally then you will be arrested anyway (e.g. by dangerous driving) at the time. Why make someone a criminal for simply not having ID on them even if no suggestion of a criminal act was undertaken to result in that request for an ID?

Maybe people in the Netherlands are less trustworthy than in the UK? (joke only!)

But it does happen. It's less likely now as the license and insurance systems are computerized and available to the police. They still need to confirm your identity at the roadside before letting you go.
There's rarely a need to submit a producer these days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
GWs profits are hugely up, partially attributed to Brexit (weakening of GBP).

 Whirlwind wrote:

jouso wrote:


A unique, government-issued number to be able to identify yourself to anyone who needs to know and you are actually you. To open an account or get a credit card, cash a cheque, utilities, vote, have a driving license or passport issued, enroll on higher education, take up employment, sign any kind of contract etc. the only acceptable way to ID yourself is the ID card or any other forms of ID which share the number (passport and driving license contain that number, too).

There's a reason why identity theft/fraud is much rarer in countries with an ID card system.

Is there evidence for this assertion? If IDs were the panacea for all fraud then it shouldn't happen at all. I can find an article back from 2012 about identity fraud

http://ig-legacy.ft.com/content/8423e214-0d4d-11e2-99a1-00144feabdc0#axzz5Muf6nAzd

and yes the UK does have the largest percentage (24%) by population of identity fraud, however conversely one of the lowest amounts per person that gets stolen on average (£1076). However some of those countries with IDs (Germany, Italy etc) have the highest amounts stolen on average per person (£28,666, £13180) even though the number of people affected is lower (15% and 14% respectively). Therefore from a value perspective these countries with ID cards have a much larger fraud problem then the UK does. I would postulate that the ID cards actually make things worse. People trust the ID card system so implicitly that when someone does get those details then they can run rampant on someones account because it is unquestioned. Whereas by not having ID cards people require multiple forms of evidence to say who you are for larger value items especially and hence the system is much more effective at stopping these types of activities. So hence the assertion that ID cards help prevent identity fraud is questionable.

In the US or UK I can open a bank account in your name just by taking utility bills from a mailbox or garbage bin and an easily forgeable student card. A government-issued ID is much more difficult and expensive to forge.

This study seems to agree that not having a centrally issued ID is a system weakness.

https://courses.cs.ut.ee/MTAT.07.022/2014_fall/uploads/Main/francesco-report-f14.pdf

Gibraltar is one British territory which has been using ID cards for a long time, and they seem pretty happy with their scheme.

There was a HUGE fuss years ago about introducing photos on driving licences in England, Scotland and Wales. In Northern Ireland, where we'd had them for years, we found it difficult to understand the fuss given how useful it was to have pocket sized ID.

jouso wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

jouso wrote:


A unique, government-issued number to be able to identify yourself to anyone who needs to know and you are actually you. To open an account or get a credit card, cash a cheque, utilities, vote, have a driving license or passport issued, enroll on higher education, take up employment, sign any kind of contract etc. the only acceptable way to ID yourself is the ID card or any other forms of ID which share the number (passport and driving license contain that number, too).

There's a reason why identity theft/fraud is much rarer in countries with an ID card system.

Is there evidence for this assertion? If IDs were the panacea for all fraud then it shouldn't happen at all. I can find an article back from 2012 about identity fraud

http://ig-legacy.ft.com/content/8423e214-0d4d-11e2-99a1-00144feabdc0#axzz5Muf6nAzd

and yes the UK does have the largest percentage (24%) by population of identity fraud, however conversely one of the lowest amounts per person that gets stolen on average (£1076). However some of those countries with IDs (Germany, Italy etc) have the highest amounts stolen on average per person (£28,666, £13180) even though the number of people affected is lower (15% and 14% respectively). Therefore from a value perspective these countries with ID cards have a much larger fraud problem then the UK does. I would postulate that the ID cards actually make things worse. People trust the ID card system so implicitly that when someone does get those details then they can run rampant on someones account because it is unquestioned. Whereas by not having ID cards people require multiple forms of evidence to say who you are for larger value items especially and hence the system is much more effective at stopping these types of activities. So hence the assertion that ID cards help prevent identity fraud is questionable.

In the US or UK I can open a bank account in your name just by taking utility bills from a mailbox or garbage bin and an easily forgeable student card. A government-issued ID is much more difficult and expensive to forge.

This study seems to agree that not having a centrally issued ID is a system weakness.

https://courses.cs.ut.ee/MTAT.07.022/2014_fall/uploads/Main/francesco-report-f14.pdf

Gibraltar is one British territory which has been using ID cards for a long time, and they seem pretty happy with their scheme.

Having worked in banking for a few years, no you can't. Not in the UK at least. You need at minimum another (signed) bank card and a form of proof for that signature to open a bank account. If you're a foreign student or national, you can open a basic bank account, but that is essentially nothing more than a saving account with a cash card. You get no debit or BAC's processes with that. So you need an already valid form of ID to get a fully functioning account.

For some reason the UK has an ingrained cultural resistance to carrying ID cards.

Perhaps if they had a dark blue cover...