ID Cards and the Great Loss of Liberty
Weekend media reports reveal that Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, has admitted that the government intends to make possession of ID cards compulsory. Please see my blog of 18th Jan here where I imagined this may be the case. Other reports confirm that failure to possess the cards will become a criminal offence. The government has also finally admitted that ID cards will not assist the fight against terrorism as previously claimed.
Anything that can be made can be forged. ID cards will be no different. Imagine Man X wants to impersonate Joe Bloggs. Man X obtains the services of an ID card forger. An ID card is obtained, with the photo, fingerprints and biometric data of Man X on it. The name embossed on the front is Joe Bloggs. Man X goes to make use of his new ID card. The fingerprints and biometric data on the card are checked against his. He provides a PIN number that matches that held on the card. He is confirmed to be Joe Bloggs.
There is clearly no way of identifying this Joe Bloggs as Man X. The only way this can be done is via access to a centrally held database. This means that each and every eligible person in the United Kingdom will be required to provide their personal details, including biometric data, fingerprints and photographs to the state. This database, be default, will be accessible to a vast array of service providers.
The government initially argued that the ID card process was necessary to defeat terrorism. Not any more. They also claimed that it would help to tackle organised crime and identity fraud. It will not. ID cards are being introduced. They will be compulsory. Failure to possess one will become a criminal offence. I have no doubt that failure to provide the required data to the central database will also be punishable under law.
It was only a matter of years ago that the only way the state could hold fingerprint and DNA material about you was following conviction or caution for a criminal offence. It will now be a criminal offence not to supply this data to the state.
posted by World Weary Detective @ 7:48 PM
9 comments
9 Comments:
Surely a prerequisite of a crime is a victim or victim(s)? Where is the victim of the crime of me not giving my details to the ID card database?
In reality, of course, they probably won't even need to ask me - I won't even know they've done it or where they've got it from.
I am somewhat ambivilent about ID cards, but I presume that in your professional capacity you carry one. Are your human rights infringed by this? If not, why would mine be? I feel that my human rights are more likely to be infringed if I were unable to prove to you, a man not in uniform, who I am on a dark night, somewhere in the UK.
(I also feel that I've made a couple of spelling errors - sorry).
I carry a warrant card as a condition of my employment. I do not carry ID merely for existing in the UK. Should I fail to carry my warrant card, I would be subject to discipline procedures and potential dismissal. I would not be facing imprisonment.
Ros H, I know what you mean. It's just a bit of paper, right? Or a little square of plastic, whatever.
On the other hand, why is it ok to force people to pay for such a card if it achieves none of the original (emotionally charged) aims, like defeating identity fraud and Terror(tm)? Particularly since the scheme will suffer the usual quota of snafus.
Do you want to pay £100-£300 for a piece of plastic whose only purpose is to make you look slightly suspicious for not carrying one?
Do you want to pay to avoid arrest? What comes next on the database? Political affiliations? Religious beliefs? Wouldn't it be handy for the government's war of terror to have a list of all the Muslims in the country?
Remember when you used to be able to protest outside parliament?
I carry an work ID card as a condition of my employment. I also have to dress appropriately, be in a designated place between designated times, be cordial and polite to my colleagues etc. I am paid to do these things as part of a contract voluntarily entered into by both parties
I do not have to do any of these things. I can choose to work elsewhere.
The carrying of state ID cards is not voluntary and provides me with no plausible return either directly or as part of a public good. It is likely to cost me a great deal in terms of cash and loss of liberty. This is obvious to all involved.
The only reason this is still going through is that an increasingly authoritarian ruling class considers it more important to maintain its authority than to be correct. Any one with any knowledge of military training will recognise this “style of management”.
Perhaps it is appropriate in the military (or even the police), but hardly likely to be effective in the UK civilian population.
As the government’s moral authority wanes it will rely more and more on heavy handed policing to maintain its authority.
It is a negative feedback situation that will just causes the rift between the rulers and the ruled to widen. You have to wonder if any one in New Labour has read a history book.
WWD....... you put it far more succinctly than I ever could so i hope you 't mind if I use your argument.
Tim, you make a very valid point about the ruling class. Are New Labour beginning to feel unsafe? It could be a very worrying development. Who is actually opposing all this in Parliament?
Jurgen - Very kind of you to say so. Please feel free...
The mjor problem with ID cards as I see it is that politicians are attempting to use a technological solution to a percieved problem. This is never a good thing.
There are cryptographic techniques that would could verify ID reliably and not require a central database, it is unlikely these will be used. If they were private companies could easily issue the cards, on a purely voluntary basis (i.e. you buy them), mainly for use in business transactions. The government could facilitate this (at very low cost comparitively) by publishing standards for these cards to use, so your Barclays ID card would work in a Sainsburies card reader.
Chances of a politician coming up with this scheme? Nil.
Post a Comment
<< Home