Wavex DSX, provides an automated, agent-less, secure, fast, simple and scalable online backup solution. We also advise clients on disaster recovery planning, ensuring that business can continue in the event of the unexpected...

To ensure that your business can deal with the unforeseen, it is crucial to ensure that key data is being properly managed and secured. Traditional solutions, involving tape or data mirroring across multiple sites are available from Wavex, where appropriate.

The edvige scheme is just the continuity of a process that surface at the turn of the 21 century, it got accelerated with 9/11 which has become the logical excuse for surveillance, mind control, media control, brainwashing and the lot, more precisely a Orwellian realm alive is what most of us are experiencing. At the same time the economical upheavals and the chopping up of institutions immigration laws and high cost of living leads to the future king that will control the underprivileged realm. Only way out is to drop the system, call the capitalistic system! However, to do that fear will have to put aside and folks will have to get together for their day of independence. Otherwise there is no chance for anything but just a modern middle age, were media barons and financial knights will be under the orders of our beloved big brother and its unique political party.

George V, well said!! Everything that you described would send Hitler himself running for cover, shaking and crying. Not even the Nazis could've dreamed of this landscape. Imagine France giving olde Germany a run for its money.....

If this is to track pedophiles, then great. Those people give up their status as a human being the moment they choose to view children as sex objects and act on it.

However, this whole Edvige scheme is, in fact, not here to be something useful. It's here to allow the French government to poke its nose into everyone's affairs under the guise of keeping them safe. It's called the Patriot Act in the USA.

For the French to stop Edvige, then this would mean taking back their country and to stop allowing foreigners to dictate their national policy and culture. But try telling that to our governments. They grow fat from the profits of all this, but the regular people suffer from loss of culture, identity, violence, and cultural relativism on the part of the immigrants.

Peterjosephthompson,

You are quite right that not everyone will agree. I think you are staggeringly naive.

Giving immensely detailed information to the state does not make us free, it makes us very much less free. It transforms the relationship between the citizen and the state (because the state can know more about you than you can find out about it). This shift in the balance of power has a corrosive effect on society because it encourages us to abdicate our responsibilities to maintain order to the state. That is to say that we cease to be self-organising citizens and become, increasingly, passive recipients of services and payers of taxes. Customer citizens if you prefer.

When we ask the police to tell us whether our partner has a previous history of crimes against children, we are essentially saying that we are already concerned but we have decided not to exercise our own judgement, relying instead upon the judgement of the state.

When we allow the state access to all the data it needs to divide us into neat sub-demographics and interest groups we give it the green light to view society as a mere aggregation of competing interests - to be mollified by political triangulation.

By refusing the state access to our data we keep it under our control rather than the other way around, by refusing to be divided into interest groups we insist on a universal standard of dignity. By refusing to co-operate with polling we force the Government to continue the battle of ideas which has generated progress.

It is true, as the Government claims, that the ID card database itself will not contain very many pieces of information about any given individual but this is claim is entirely disingenuous because the purpose of the universal ID number is to allow other databases to be linked together (and not just by the state). This allows the Government to build a statistical model of its citizens either on an aggregated basis - identifying types of people - or on an individual basis. Any contact you have with the state can therefore be cross referenced to build a picture of unprecedented detail which the state can use in order to decide how to handle you. This level of data capture would make a Stasi officer blush not only because of the sheer amount of date but because its electronic format will allow more effective use to be made of it than was ever possible using the Stasi's card files.

And, as to those who say that the British state is benign relative to that of the GDR, well, you may be right at present. However it is worth noting that over the last ten years the Government has eroded the presumption of innocence, eroded the trial by jury, introduced the longest period of pre-trial detention in the democratic world (which it is seeking to extend), introduced a number of species of thought crime, eroded the right to protest and attempted to introduce legislation allowing ministers to change the law at will (Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act - do look it up). Moreover, in recent years, the BNP has begun to command increased support, a process that culminated in Richard Barnbrook winning a seat on the GLA.

All this happened during a period of peace and prosperity when the UK faced no existential threat whatsoever. Imagine what measure the Government might feel "necessary" if a prolonged recession or depression were to be accompanied by the rise of foreign or domestic threats with a coherent world view.

Right I totally disagree with this article. I do not understand why people have a problem with this database. Surely it is for the best interests of all
citizens. Look in the British news at the moment. The government is testing plans in Peterborough so that "strangers" who have unauthorised access to their children are screened to see whether they are a paedophile and/or sex offender. Surely this is a great scheme. You can sit back and relax knowing your child is safe.

I think that both the author of this article and Mr Damian O'Loan, need to realise that the world we live in is far from perfect. We have terrorists knocking at every available door. The internet has expanded at such a rate that we can no longer effectively catch harbouring terrorists, paedophiles, sex offenders etc; as the network they belong too is encrypted with all sorts of
data to prevent any watchful eye.

I total applaud Sarkozy for an incredible act of foresight. I also do not appreciate your comments on the British public either. Britain is an island remember, and so we have to be more vigilant than most nations (especially as we are quite a formidable world power.) The UK citizens need protecting. Not all will agree with me on this, such as the fiasco over ID cards. But the fact to call us "subjects" infuriates me. We do not look to Brown and think "Oh mighty one we must obey." Our constitution is organic and can change on a daily basis. The French constitution is completely different and inflexible. 

This shared citizenship you talk about in France is only available because they actively seek to get rid of religion on a public basis. Sarkozy met the Pope and rolled the red carpet. The French went nuts because they were supposed to be seen as the only country that truly separates religion from state; which they have believed ever since the French revolution. France also had an openly racist president for years at the helm too. So when you talk of this shared citizenship do you mean the ones the French farmers have when the UK bails it out over the CAP policy, or the one that inflicts emotional scars on the poor Muslim girl who cannot wear a headscarf to school?

Your thoughts are welcome.

Indeed the reaction has been much more vocal than that in Britain to the database plans, and there was a similar response in Sweden. Though there has been a retreat, it is not certain that it will go so far as to remove the legitimate civil liberties concerns.

It is also concerning that the information collected will be subject to the recent agreement between the EU and the US concerning the sharing of intelligence. The right to privacy is clearly at stake, and other rights relevant to the opinions expressed recently in the High Court of the Military Commissions Act.