About Me

My photo
I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

ID cards will provoke a national identity crisis

Andrew Phillips Sunday February 12, 2006 for The Observer

Tomorrow, the House of Lords' eight votes against the Identity Cards Bill come before the Commons. It is still unclear how many the government will concede. Labour argues that most people already carry several identification cards, so why not a single, ultra-safe one? However, industry experts warn that that could create a fraudsters' honeypot. And compulsory ID cards will entitle state authorities to a tranche of biometric and other data, some highly sensitive. The bill devotes 135 lines just to defining that dragnet, with penalties of up to £2,500 for failure to comply. Another comfy notion is that we're only following Europe. In fact, three countries don't have ID cards, 10 do but on a voluntary basis (as the Lords propose), with only 10 having compulsory cards. But none stores nearly as much data as we propose. Our scheme would be a free-world 'first', to add to omnipresent CCTV cameras, phone traffic data, vehicle tracking and so on. Labour trumpets public support. But polling has not been deliberative, the results have varied greatly and, if and when the public understands the ramifications, including cost, opposition could harden, as happened in Australia.

We're endlessly told that 'if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear'. In today's technological and managerial culture, this is difficult to rebut. One must start from every citizen's right to privacy. The Germans understand. Since the Bush wiretapping scandal, Americans are beginning to. But we in Britain are in danger of sleepwalking into authoritarianism, as the information commissioner warned, where the state stockpiles personal data in case it may 'come in useful'. Perhaps the Rubicon was crossed after the discovery in 2000 of 50,000 DNA samples wrongly retained. Instead of tightening the regime, the illegality was legitimised and the law changed to allow retention without charge or caution. That experience feeds expectations of creeping extensions of the ID card database, not forgetting that in 1995 Tony Blair was dead against compulsory ID cards. Scepticism is further stoked by government claims that it has a mandate for compulsory cards. Its manifesto, in fact, talked only of 'rolling out [the scheme] initially on a voluntary basis'. Under close parliamentary scrutiny, some innovations gather credibility, while some wilt, which is why the government lost a series of critical votes. The first attacked its refusal to give an estimate of the all-in costs of the scheme with the excuse that that would compromise commercial sensitivity. That has not stopped the government trying to rubbish the in-depth viability study by 16 LSE professors and teams who have estimated the 10-year cost at £19-24bn.

The government justifies this massive adventure primarily on the basis that compulsory cards will significantly reduce terrorism, crime, social security fraud and illegal immigration. But its rationale has imploded. On terrorism, Stella Rimington and Lord Carlile have torpedoed government claims. As for crime, particularly identity theft, senior police officers disagree with the government, while industry experts reckon that the scheme will be corruptible internally and externally and provide a field day for booming high-tech fraud. As for immigration, would-be incomers do not have to have identity cards and on social security fraud well over 90 per cent is down to lies about circumstances, not identity. There remain some basic cultural doubts. Should the state manifest a presumption of trust towards its citizenry, or is that onus now to be reversed, and, if so, with what effects? Will a surveillance state strengthen or weaken the body politic and citizen allegiance long term? And will our unparalleled new security regime lead to diminishing returns, like an excess of antibiotics? The Lords, after 60 hours of debate, sensed that red lights are already flashing on all these issues and stood resolute against this pig in a poke.

4 comments:

Laura said...

They're talking about this in the States too - nothings been taken to Congress yet I don't think. If it has, it was killed. I don't think having a national ID card is a bad thing per se - but to include all that kind of data in it is creepy. But to have a National ID card with the basic driver's license information would be a good thing since each state in the US has a different looking license.

I also question the "if you have nothing to hide" argument... these days, you don't know what is worth hiding. Especially here with the damn Patriot Act - the definition of "terrorist activity" is so loose that you don't know what might be used as examples. It will become a witch hunt like the McCarthy era.

Juggling Mother said...

As far as I am aware there is no intention to make them compulsory. In fact Blair and a number of home secs have specifically said they won't be compulsory.

they're talking about making them part of the passport application. How much info does the gov already hold on us from that? Loads!

like everything, ID cards are not inherently dangerous. It's how they are used that may cause concern. And no-body is even bothering to discuss that!

I'd rather see legislation on who/how/why the data can be accessed than a pointless debate on what the new card should look like. We are all easily trackable by the cards we already carry - passport, driving licence, credit cards, electoral roll, utility companies, phone companis, internet companies........

CyberKitten said...

laura said: I also question the "if you have nothing to hide" argument... these days, you don't know what is worth hiding. Especially here with the damn Patriot Act - the definition of "terrorist activity" is so loose that you don't know what might be used as examples. It will become a witch hunt like the McCarthy era.

The guy who came up with the 'nothing to hide' quote must be quite pleased with himself. But as you said the definition is questionable. Who defines what it is? Is it that you've been to Pakistan in the last 20 years? Do you associate with Muslim friends? Have you ever bought a copy of the Koran? Have you ever been in the wrong place at the wrong time? We have already seen what guilt by accusation means - a swift trip to Cuba or a not so nice visit to another country via CIA flights. ID cards will just make the whole process a little bit easier.

Mrs A said: In fact Blair and a number of home secs have specifically said they won't be compulsory.

[grin].. and you *believe* them? I'm astonished. How easy would it be after non-compulsory ID cards came in that they determine that they're not working well enough - and that the only way to 'solve' the problem is compulsion. Or the idea that you can't claim benefits without one, or visit your doctor, or vote etc.. The government wouldn't need to pass any extra laws.

Mrs A said: like everything, ID cards are not inherently dangerous. It's how they are used that may cause concern.

Exactly. As many people have said - we all carry some form of ID & there is an enormous amount of data about us stored everywhere. So how are ID cards going to be used? To increase or decrease our liberty? Are ID cards actually going to protect us against anything? I can't help thinking that there is a not so hidden agenda behind this.

greatwhitebear said...

its the mark of the beast. and tony is just paving the way for antichrist w bush