Face to face interviews!

sakura · Post by **sakura** » Thu May 10, 2007 2:56 pm

Actually, maybe this is old news, but I have not seen anything on this on the board recently. So you need a face-to-face interview for your first adult British passport.

Hope no one is nervous about interviews!

http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/applying/nationality/ and http://www.passport.gov.uk/passport_fir ... rviews.asp

SK1 · Post by **SK1** » Fri May 11, 2007 11:49 am

sakura wrote:Actually, maybe this is old news, but I have not seen anything on this on the board recently. So you need a face-to-face interview for your first adult British passport.

Hope no one is nervous about interviews!

http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/applying/nationality/ and http://www.passport.gov.uk/passport_fir ... rviews.asp

I'll probably be one of those unlucky bunch to be called for interviews. I got my approval on the 05/05/07, but am still waiting for my Citizenship ceremony invitation...and then I have to get a date, etc. So, by the time I get to the passport phase, it'll be June. Maybe, I'll be lucky and not get called for an interview???

SK1

OL7MAX · Post by **OL7MAX** » Fri May 11, 2007 1:20 pm

Why face to face interviews? To ask you a load of questions (up to 200 questions) and see if you know the answers.

You know what the scary part is? That they know the answers.

tekaweni · Post by **tekaweni** » Fri May 11, 2007 1:32 pm

Apparently its to reduce the level of fraudulent applications and they want to check that you are indeed you. Fair enough I think, I wouldnt be worried about it.

Dawie · Post by **Dawie** » Fri May 11, 2007 8:18 pm

OL7MAX wrote:Why face to face interviews? To ask you a load of questions (up to 200 questions) and see if you know the answers.

You know what the scary part is? That they know the answers.

The scary part is what happens if you can't provide the correct answers to questions about your life? Imagine never being able to obtain a passport because your memory isn't what it used to be.

tekaweni · Post by **tekaweni** » Sat May 12, 2007 2:02 am

Nah I dont think this is cause for paranoia, more like a reaction to the increasing incidence of id theft. Sure its inconvenient but we've all jumped through hoops already to get this far, so hey.

They say they will already have verified that the applicant's id qualifies for the passport and checks out geophysically, and all that remains is to make sure that the person getting the passport is indeed the applicant and not, say, that lady on the BBC program a coupla months ago going for yet another fake passport. Or worse.

I really dont see the problem with this. Who's ever had difficulty proving who they are?

OL7MAX · Post by **OL7MAX** » Sat May 12, 2007 10:21 am

paranoia

I suppose paranoia as in if you don't have anything to hide then you have nothing to worry about.

Logical as in if you are not a terrorist then you'll have no reason to object to identification cards.

Sensible as in just because the government is unable to roll out ANY major IT project either on time, on cost, or within a half decent standard of competence there is no reason to assume they'll can't efficiently manage this new mega ID database that's going to form the bedrock of cards and passports.

Economical as in letting them you charge more money for the appearance of greater control when there are a million holes elsewhere that aren't being filled despite being cheaper to close.

Interviews make hardly a dent in this problem - it's a smokescreen.

One day people will regret that it's become commonplace to dismiss any questioning of government motives as paranoia.

tekaweni · Post by **tekaweni** » Sat May 12, 2007 11:46 am

OL7MAX - quick to criticise as ever. You know of any workable alternative to having interviews?

OL7MAX · Post by **OL7MAX** » Sat May 12, 2007 1:30 pm

paranoia

Hmm, not as fast as you obviously.

Or is criticism OK ... except when someone retaliates with some?

but we've all jumped through hoops already to get this far, so hey

That's not a valid reason for handing yet more liberty and privacy away. I take it you're an immigrant (jumped through hoops). It's not in the interest of the majority to have a HO with access to answers on 200 odd questions about your life outside of what you have on the forms. It's a recipe for disaster and even more serious ID theft (Bear in mind that govt is pathetic at IT security) not to mention inconvenience, false negatives and misery for millions. For some people it involves a couple of hundred miles to their nearest interview and a couple of days off work. And that expense is in addition to the passport charges that will keep going up because of all the tens of thousands of additional pen pushers whose salary and generous pension needs to be paid for. Ridiculous! If it were such a good idea every other country in the developed world would have passport interviews.

Docterror · Post by **Docterror** » Sat May 12, 2007 2:01 pm

In my opinion, it can indeed be classified as paranoia because the comparitive intrusion into our privacy and liberty is not quite proportional to the amount of criticism the plan does get. But then again is there any plan in any country which would not have a group of people who take it upon themselves to do nothing else to do but to just sit around and criticise it until they are satisfied that they are right. Heaven forbid that they be asked to come up with a solution that would not attract criticism, because they are aware that if they do remotedly come up with something good, there will be their clones sitting around to ... well, criticise.

We should be more appauled by the fact that they do know the answers to the 200 questions in the first place... and not that they are asking us these questions.

OL7MAX · Post by **OL7MAX** » Sat May 12, 2007 3:31 pm

it can indeed be classified as paranoia

It's reassuring to have so many psychiatrists all in one room and particularly gratifying to know that they are all specialists in the diagnosis of psychotic illnesses. It's a stroke of pure luck that they even agree on a definition of paranoia, something other psychiatrists have yet to achieve.

We should be more appauled by the fact that they do know the answers to the 200 questions in the first place... and not that they are asking us these questions.

Which is exactly what I said.

Would you be agreeable to interviews if that were the sole pretext for them collecting and storing the answers in the first place i.e. if they started collecting these answers purely to be used in the interview situation and only because there are interviews?

We'd still have slavery if people didn't criticise governments. And all governments would be fascist dictatorships.

tekaweni · Post by **tekaweni** » Sat May 12, 2007 6:22 pm

OL7MAX - I have never objected to criticism, but criticism about what they are doing without even a hint at what you would prefer to see instead isnt useful discussion.

Regarding the interviews I didnt know about the '200 items' bit. Surely they arent going to collect masses of information about everyone? Those will have to be purely generic questions, time constraints alone make that a must. In which case I should think its the manner of response to the questions rather than the content that matters.

It will be interesting to see postings from the early 'interrogatees', come early June.

OL7MAX · Post by **OL7MAX** » Sat May 12, 2007 8:07 pm

but criticism about what they are doing without even a hint at what you would prefer to see instead isnt useful discussion

tekaweni, having a detailed alternative plan isn't, and never was, a pre-requisite to protest. If that were the case we couldn't argue against higher taxes without proposing an alternate budget, we couldn't have rallied against a war in Iraq without suggesting an alternate way of deposing Saddam. If there are serious flaws in a plan they should be pointed out. Period. And without conditions. The seriousness of those flaws should steer the discussion.

Not that I don't have ideas, but I refuse to propose them here as it'll dilute the conversation. Besides, when someone proposes a change to status quo it is up to them to provide the convincing reasons. And all the HO can muster is the usual rubbish about terrorists and fraud. Notice no talk about a guaranteed reduction in the specific crime this is supposed to target?

Let's keep the focus on the subject of the thread: the interviews. 200 may be a conservative estimate. Logically, all the questions would need to be from outside what's in the application form. And there wouldn't really be a point in just about 20 questions. Forums like this would soon distribute the nature of those 20 questions and future applicants would be prepared. Back to square one. If they need to have answers on 200 questions then where do they get them from? HMRC? Your employer? Equifax? The DVLA? Your NHS history? Who draws the line, and where? And what happens when the whole 200 question list is released into the public domain for future fraudsters to prepare themselves?

Marco 72 · Post by **Marco 72** » Sat May 12, 2007 8:57 pm

OL7MAX wrote:Not that I don't have ideas, but I refuse to propose them here as it'll dilute the conversation. Besides, when someone proposes a change to status quo it is up to them to provide the convincing reasons. And all the HO can muster is the usual rubbish about terrorists and fraud.

That is the point. It's up to the government to make a case for the interviews (with a full cost-benefit analysis) not to opponents to provide an "alternative".

tekaweni · Post by **tekaweni** » Sat May 12, 2007 9:26 pm

OL7MAX - some fair comment accepted, although it was you who veered off into id cards and govt IT projects. My assertion was, and is, that requiring 1st time passport applicants to present themselves in person and satisfy the issuers that they are indeed who they purport to be is not unreasonable.

And sadly, I dont think they'll even need to collect any data - the amount of data on all of us in numerous databases, some of which our applications authorise them to use, is scary enough already.

Marco 72 - the case for the interviews is due to the number of valid passports being issued to fraudsters using other people's ids, made possible because there is no human contact throughout the process. So should that simply continue or what? Rubbish.

Docterror · Post by **Docterror** » Sat May 12, 2007 9:42 pm

OL7MAX wrote:It's reassuring to have so many psychiatrists all in one room and particularly gratifying to know that they are all specialists in the diagnosis of psychotic illnesses. It's a stroke of pure luck that they even agree on a definition of paranoia, something other psychiatrists have yet to achieve

So, only psychiatrists are allowed to use the term paranoia according to you? Nice!

Would you be agreeable to interviews if that were the sole pretext for them collecting and storing the answers in the first place i.e. if they started collecting these answers purely to be used in the interview situation and only because there are interviews?

If a lot of my personal information was available to anyone it would definitely annoy me that it was available in the first place and not the fact that it was gathered together. But I do cut my temper a lot of slack as a lot of it was inevitable because they can do it more efficiently now because of the technology and use national security as the excuse for doing so. If there was a protest to regain a lot of the liberties that has been eroded over the years, I would happily take part. But protesting against the gathering of the information that is already available, that is not my cup of tea.

We'd still have slavery if people didn't criticise governments. And all governments would be fascist dictatorships.

If that were the case we couldn't argue against higher taxes without proposing an alternate budget, we couldn't have rallied against a war in Iraq without suggesting an alternate way of deposing Saddam.

I am not against constructive criticism at all. But the brand of criticism handed out by a lot of people including you is to just appear in the limelight as a macho rebel wanting to appear powerful with an tint of anarchy added to the mix. If a country was to be created with of 100 such people then there would be 100 political parties with noone ready to pay any sort of attention to the other and all the resources available would not be used for anything constructive but to get everyone of each other's back. And there are places like that where there are a just so many political parties that it is not possible for any particular party to come into power by themselves and the coalition party formed do not last that long and is not powerful enough to bring in any changes. Now, do I need to be a professional social scientist to figure out that a country made up of only people like you is a prefect recipe for a disaster?

If they need to have answers on 200 questions then where do they get them from? HMRC? Your employer? Equifax? The DVLA? Your NHS history? Who draws the line, and where? And what happens when the whole 200 question list is released into the public domain for future fraudsters to prepare themselves?

Yes! They get it from all the sources available and if we want to draw the line, draw it so that HMRC or Equifax or DVLA etc doesnot have our records and not criticise the government for getting their hands on them as well just because it is easier to find support for any anti-government rant in an immigration forum.

Marco72 wrote:That is the point. It's up to the government to make a case for the interviews (with a full cost-benefit analysis) not to opponents to provide an "alternative".

True. And even though I had read something along the lines of identity theft and ineligible people applying for the passport through other fraudulent means, I could not re-find the link and thus cannot provide it here. But the onus is indeed upon the government to highlight the reason for the passport interviews which does seem to be pretty scarce right now.

virtual-writer · Post by **virtual-writer** » Sat May 12, 2007 10:30 pm

The interview takes 30 min, according to the passport web site. How many questions would they manage to cover in those minutes?

30 min is too long in my opinion, it's not in their right to know that much about a person. The information isn't destroyed until the passport has been issued.... what if some gangsters came and stole all that collected data of x amount of persons?

It should be enough with max 15 min, to determine a person's true identity, no?

Marco 72 · Post by **Marco 72** » Sat May 12, 2007 10:58 pm

tekaweni wrote:Marco 72 - the case for the interviews is due to the number of valid passports being issued to fraudsters using other people's ids, made possible because there is no human contact throughout the process.

Do you have any data on the number of "valid passports issued to fraudsters"? How much money is lost through fraud because of this? What is the cost of the passport interviews scheme? This is a cost-benefit analysis.

tekaweni · Post by **tekaweni** » Sat May 12, 2007 11:26 pm

Marco 72 - 10000 last year apparently, at least according to this BBC report six weeks ago. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6470179.stm

I guess the crux of the issue depends on them actually destroying the info once the passport is issued. But as I said previously, I think all the data they'll pull together will be culled from existing sources (Experian, DVLA etc), so hitting their delete button wouldnt remove it. I cant believe they'll find the time to go out looking for any additional info about us - hell, they cant even keep up with their present workload of printing and posting out passports.

I dont think we'll ever see a business case for the interviews, just like the HO doesnt seem to have provided one for the outrageous naturalisation price hikes either (unless I missed it).
[/b][/url]

Docterror · Post by **Docterror** » Sun May 13, 2007 1:24 am

Marco72 wrote:How much money is lost through fraud because of this? What is the cost of the passport interviews scheme? This is a cost-benefit analysis.

Just to have an insight, assuming that the cost-benefit analysis turns out to be a loss for the government, would you suggest that we scrap the idea or should we continue with it to strengthen the integrity of our passports and combat the fraudulant applications?

OL7MAX · Post by **OL7MAX** » Sun May 13, 2007 9:38 am

mental (psychotic illness)...macho rebel poser... pretend anarchist...etc

It is commonly accepted that when a debater resorts to attacking other debaters he has effectively lost the argument. And, arguably, the plot.

Docterror · Post by **Docterror** » Sun May 13, 2007 10:55 am

OL7MAX wrote:
mental (psychotic illness)...macho rebel poser... pretend anarchist...etc
It is commonly accepted that when a debater resorts to attacking other debaters he has effectively lost the argument. And, arguably, the plot.

And it is also commonly accepted that one line of attack on the character of the points of the debater does not annul the entire debate. But, it also doesn't change that I feel that you are way too eager to criticise and twist everything just to stand out in the crowd rather than be constructive.

Example of more twisting?..still looking for the part where mental(psychotic illness) was originally a part of my post meant for character defamation.

OL7MAX · Post by **OL7MAX** » Sun May 13, 2007 5:50 pm

Yes, you constantly imagine twisting when people don't all agree with you, that's obvious; you usual insult others when you can't get your way (example) and even to the point where threads you're in have to be locked. Very cool.

Mature discussion involves keeping to the subject at hand rather than pulling faces at people and calling them names - including words like idiot and stupid. And you seem to like referring them to shrinks if you aren't calling them psychotic (in other threads). Denigrating a participant will never substitute for having something sensible to say ... and it discloses more about the attacker than the subject. I'll try to get this back on topic and address some of the mature comments here.

30 min is too long in my opinion, it's not in their right to know that much about a person.

They will know a lot more about you than will fit in a 30 minute interview.

I dont think they'll even need to collect any data - the amount of data on all of us in numerous databases

The damage they can do you when an individual database is compromised is not a patch on what can happen when they put it all together. We live in an age where information can be manipulated like never before in history. The scrouge of modern technology is the immense power of databases and data mining software. From the Tesco loyalty card to the NHS records they are worth massive amounts of money. Companies like Equifax have nothing more than large databases and they are worth hundreds of millions of pounds.

Now I'm an avowed capitalist and defend the right of any company to legally exploit databases to the hilt. But as a consumer I have to be constantly vigilant as to what data I give and to whom. And protest when that data is crossing boundaries. For example, if I carried a Tesco loyalty card Tesco assures my annonymity. Yet, they have my CC details and can easily associate my favourite items with my name. That could be cross referenced with the local electoral role to provide an address which could be matched to Tesco bank's last credit reference check on me. Suddenly Tesco knows what financial products to sell me (they know who my mortgage is with and what interest I'm paying). They know to charge me extra on health insurance because I don't buy very healthy food. They know what junk mail to send me, and what items I am loyal to that they can charge me extra for when I shop online. And they can do it for a million customers in less time than it takes me to finish this sentence. And that's only the start. Free data sharing betweeen government departments is a recipe for disaster and very, very dangerous as the government has even more information on you that's not in the public domain.

What is the cost of the passport interviews scheme? This is a cost-benefit analysis.

Ah, but you shouldn't bother your head with pretty little things like that. Just trust us that this is a Good Thing. And it'll reduce terrorism, you know.

Docterror · Post by **Docterror** » Sun May 13, 2007 7:06 pm

Yes, you constantly imagine twisting when people don't all agree with you, that's obvious; you usual insult others when you can't get your way (example) and even to the point where threads you're in have to be locked. Very cool.

Wow! You went through all that trouble to find some'dirt' on me?.. I feel flattered.

Now,you are the only one whom I accuse of being a spin doctor, whether it be seeing an argument when one does not exist or the example above of the many twists and exaggerations during your time here. Not something I ever had to accuse anyone else of till now. Incidentally the agitations that got the thread locked was started by.. well, let others judge that.

Mature discussion involves keeping to the subject at hand rather than pulling faces at people and calling them names - including words like idiot and stupid. And you seem to like referring them to shrinks.

I admittedly went overboard with the other poster but different people need different ways to get the message across. Anyone who has been through my prior posts know that unlike you it isn't my normal tone to be offensive nor am I talented enough to effortlessly pick up arguments with everyone. If anyone who criticises you is immature in your view, then that is your problem and not mine.

if you aren't calling them psychotic (in other threads)

Got proof?.. or trying to wriggle out of a twist?

tekaweni · Post by **tekaweni** » Sun May 13, 2007 8:22 pm

Ok this is becoming boring now. Someone took my idly stated point of view on the 1st page (my how its grown?) as a personal threat/insult/whatever and basically nuked it - while claiming to uphold the principles of open and free debate no less. So boo hoo. Its been an eyebrow-raiser to see the level of paranoia some unfortunates actually live with - yeah, the more this has gone on the more apparent its become that *was* the right word.

Anyways, the bbq's on the go, the visitors arrive anytime now, this is Kim signing out.

Immigrationboards.com: Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board

Face to face interviews!

Face to face interviews!

Re: Face to face interviews!