From: jack@handsome.com 
  
 On Sun, 28 Sep 2025 11:40:25 +0100, JNugent wrote: 
 > Interesting. At present, nobody has a duty to keep the authorities up to 
 > date with their address (except for people with specific orders to do 
 > so, such as those on the Sex Offenders Register or otherwise under some 
 > sort of official supervision such as probation or early release from 
 > prison). 
  
 Or people in receipt of DWP benefits, or who have to file tax returns, or 
 pay council tax. 
  
 When a public sector body who deals with an individual needs to notify 
 them of anything, they will use the correspondence address they have on 
 file, just like any other body does. 
  
 > But I have read that some countries, even in the EU, do put such an 
 > obligation on every resident. In such a situation, there's less trouble 
 > for the public sector in notifying persons of decisions, demands, 
 > obligations, etc. 
  
 If the individual hasn't kept (say) HMRC up to date with his 
 correspondence address, he could just as easily not have kept his ID card 
 address up to date either, so there's little practical difference. 
  
 > Perhaps that rule could be introduced here, courtesy of the ID card? 
  
 Why? 
  
 > And why not? 
  
 Because it introduces an extra obligation on people to do things they 
 didn't have to do before, costing time and effort and perhaps penalties if 
 they forget to do it. And their address becomes available to a large 
 number of people who don't need it and who might leak it (just as HMRC did 
 with millions of taxpayers' addresses a few years ago, and as the MoD 
 recently did with hundreds of thousands of Afghans). And meantime the 
 existing system seems to work adequately. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)