UK ID Cards - for or against?

[blockers]

hhm...still not convinced that the government could implement a system this advanced correctly.

[Paul Adams]

ID Card Unofficial Info on The Register

[Blub2k]

The Third Way -- Labour policy
Originally coined by Mussolini in his case it was fascism.

[plaz]

I'm definately for the idea of id cards but even if it does happen its going to be another 10 or so year wait before it comes into affect.

[RVF500]

ID cards won't put even a minor scratch on terrorism. Tighter border/immigration controls might go some way to doing that but as any bad tempered eastern European has found out. Turn up by the busload, growl at immigration, get waved through and have a nice day. Besides, border controls are anathema to this Govt. Unless you are a normal individual with an extra carton of cigarettes in your bag from your day trip to Calais.

Basic information may be useful and have some impact on petty crime and fraud. It will filter the less savvy out of the pond. More than that is overkill imho. he savvy ones will figure a way around it pretty quickly.

Trust this govt? .....nuff said.

The cost will be enormous. I'm currently working on a project for the NHS to database everyone's health records so that any GP/hospital can access an individuals records wherever they happen to be taken ill in the UK. Currently each time you visit a medical facility a record is made but only held locally. The redundancy built into this is enormous. It will be at least as huge with the ID card project. It would of course become a prime hacking target.

A basic form of ID such as a credit card sized passport is no big deal for me. It depends on the information held and how it's used. As soon as you involve Govt it will be mishandled. I really resent paying for incompetence.

[DeepThought]

I've no problem with ID cards - so long as it can be used to replace my driving license, passport, etc. Suspect it will be yet another form of ID though.

[Spud1]

i got no problem with them - nothing to hide so why would they be a problem?

[Rave]

Bloody typical: I came into work on Wednesday having booked a half day so I could attend the meeting and then got ill and had to go home again. Dammit.

Anyway, here's the BBC report on the meeting:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3731465.stm

Rich :¬)

[monkeyville]

Before i was 18 i would have said no although now i'm over that boundry, i say yes (reasons should be obvious). On a serious note though, i think i'd need more infomation before i said yes or no conclusivly.

[Scientist]

I dont mind things which have a purpose such as my work ID card so I can get in and out, but when it is just a means for the government to keep tabs on me Im pretty much against its introduction - personal freedom shouldnt be restricted by the government IMO.

[Pete]

brilliant idea!
definitly for it
it would reduce crime (among otherthings) like hell and i wouldnt mind having id on me at all
Pete

[chez]

I can't see anything wrong with them (unless you've got something to hide??)

[Saracen]

I can't see anything wrong with them (unless you've got something to hide??)

Do you think they'll achieve the stated aims (i.e. reduce crime and combat terrorism, assist in identifying and dealing with illegal immigrants, prevent social security fraud, etc)?

Do you think they'll cost a fortune to implement? Bear in mind that the official estimate is already in the billions and, judging by past performance of government IT projects, its a safe bet that you can double what they say it'll cost.

Does that seem like the best available use of that sort of money? Is it value for money? Could it be that those billions would be better spent on police on streets, education, hospitals or perhaps even public transport (goodness knows the rail system needs investment)?

Remember that Stage 1 of this card scheme will be that having a card will be compulsory but carrying it won't be. Just how does it help fight crime or terrorism if you can opt to show up at a police station with your ID card several days after being asked for it? Terrorists are going to do that, aren't they? Ditto criminals. Right.

So I'll bet my boots that stage 2 will be that you not only have to have an ID card, but that you have to carry it. Now, if I decide to take a stroll in the park and forget to take my ID card, I'm going to be committing an offence of some sort. After all, compulsory carrying of the card implies that failing to do so will incur penalisation of some form. So if I get stopped and haven't got my card, what happens? Do I get a fine? How do the police know that I am who I say I am (in order to know who to fine) unless they detain me until I can prove my identity?

So now, if I take that stroll in the park (or along the beach, or go for a bike ride, or out marathon-training, or whatever) I'm likely to either get arrested or dragged home by the police to prove my identity. Because if you don't adopt a fairly aggressive stance to people that don't abide by the law and carry the card at all times, you might as well not bother with it since the very people it is (apparently) targetted at won't carry it. And THAT brings me back to question 1) - will it achieve it's stated objectives and is it value for money? To my mind, unless carrying it is compulsory, it stands zero chance of achieving stated aims, and even then, it's arguable.

And if the penalty I'd incur is trivial, then anyone seeking to commit gross naughtiness (criminals/terrorists, etc) will accept a modest fine. So by inference, failing to carry it would need to be a fairly serious matter, or we're back at question 1) again, which implies that I, as a perfectly law-abiding citizen, could end up being criminalised because I took a walk along the beach on a summer's afternoon and left my wallet in my other trousers.

And that's without even considering how to make the card secure, how to ensure both the accuracy and security of the underlying database, how to get the inevitable database problems corrected and the fact that once such a system exists (as implemented by a government which is reasonably democratic and accountable), there would be considerable potential for abuse should we ever wind up with a less-desirable government. We'd be handing any potential dictator a wonderful weapon if he has a biometric-based database of all citizens at his disposal.

NO, far from saying there's nothing wrong with them unless you've got something to hide, my view is that there needs to be an overwhelmingly good and convincing reason to have ID cards before we should agree to them, and that case has yet to be made.

[Paul Adams]

Do you think they'll achieve the stated aims (i.e. reduce crime and combat terrorism, assist in identifying and dealing with illegal immigrants, prevent social security fraud, etc)?

Yes, but not to the degree they believe (or at least claim).

Do you think they'll cost a fortune to implement? Bear in mind that the official estimate is already in the billions and, judging by past performance of government IT projects, its a safe bet that you can double what they say it'll cost.

I would be more concerned with them getting it right rather than on time/budget, but yes it will be an expensive scheme to launch.

Does that seem like the best available use of that sort of money? Is it value for money? Could it be that those billions would be better spent on police on streets, education, hospitals or perhaps even public transport (goodness knows the rail system needs investment)?

Do I think the system should be implemented at some point? Yes.
Do I think it should be put off till a later date? No, surely it will just be a bigger, more complex and costly thing to do then?
If, by its introduction, it ends up saving money from fraud then it probably will be worth it, yes.

Remember that Stage 1 of this card scheme will be that having a card will be compulsory but carrying it won't be. Just how does it help fight crime or terrorism if you can opt to show up at a police station with your ID card several days after being asked for it? Terrorists are going to do that, aren't they? Ditto criminals. Right.

No, the first stage is making the card optional, but necessary for the application of other forms of ID (passports & drivers licences) - I don't think their first step is to claw back the money by imposing a levy on every citizen for something not everyone even wants or believes in.

So I'll bet my boots that stage 2 will be that you not only have to have an ID card, but that you have to carry it. Now, if I decide to take a stroll in the park and forget to take my ID card, I'm going to be committing an offence of some sort. After all, compulsory carrying of the card implies that failing to do so will incur penalisation of some form. So if I get stopped and haven't got my card, what happens? Do I get a fine? How do the police know that I am who I say I am (in order to know who to fine) unless they detain me until I can prove my identity?
[snipped remainder]

They can't make carrying an ID card obligatory, unless every single country in the world has a mandatory ID card system too - else you would just get a staggering number of people who "don't speak English" or are "on holiday" all of a sudden.
Combatting terrorism was a "sell it to the public" point which I bet the government are wishing hadn't been so overhyped now - they (and high-scale criminal organisations in general) are the very people who will be able to circumvent the system.

And that's without even considering how to make the card secure, how to ensure both the accuracy and security of the underlying database, how to get the inevitable database problems corrected and the fact that once such a system exists (as implemented by a government which is reasonably democratic and accountable), there would be considerable potential for abuse should we ever wind up with a less-desirable government. We'd be handing any potential dictator a wonderful weapon if he has a biometric-based database of all citizens at his disposal.

Given that there are large-scale authentication systems in existence today which are fully audited down to when people even view records, leaving a trail that cannot be altered without leaving a glaring footprint, this is not as big an issue as people might think.
The biggest risk is the human element, as with any system - but that said I think it's a bit of a leap to get to a dictatorship and UK police state in all honesty.

NO, far from saying there's nothing wrong with them unless you've got something to hide, my view is that there needs to be an overwhelmingly good and convincing reason to have ID cards before we should agree to them, and that case has yet to be made.

Quite so - I'd like to see a reasoned out proposal with costs & savings estimates rather than trumped up claims it'll stop terrorism.
I'd rather they say "hey, we can stop under 16's from buying tobacco, and under 18's from buying booze!" - at least that's more likely

I may seem biased, but I've spent years dealing with very complex and secure environments, so I know it's entirely feasible to remain safe and audited - and I'm moving to Sweden where everyone has a personal number which is essential for buying alcohol through to opening a bank account and being employed.

[Saracen]

Yes, but not to the degree they believe (or at least claim).

...

I would be more concerned with them getting it right rather than on time/budget, but yes it will be an expensive scheme to launch.

I don't believe you can truly separate getting it right from doing it on budget if you are measuring against savings in other areas. There's no point spending £3 billion pounds setting up a system and £200 million a year running it if all it does it saves £50 million a year in benefit fraud.

If, by its introduction, it ends up saving money from fraud then it probably will be worth it, yes.

Hmmm. That's an awfully big "if".

No, the first stage is making the card optional, but necessary for the application of other forms of ID (passports & drivers licences) - I don't think their first step is to claw back the money by imposing a levy on every citizen for something not everyone even wants or believes in.

I wasn't referring to officially designated "stages" but to stages in my own argument. The actual first stage is to designate a variety of existing documents (driving licences, passports, etc) as being ID cards, and to make available a voluntary 'plain' (i.e. non-biomentric) ID card, but the draft bill also makes it clear that the introduction of any ID system relies on a National Identity Register and that the enabling legislation (currently in draft) will provide a date by which registering yourself with that register will be compulsory - even if having an ID card is not (initially). Realistically, it is the establishement of that database that is the true first stage and all the rest is peripheral at best. A compulsory scheme cannot operate until that database is established.

They can't make carrying an ID card obligatory, unless every single country in the world has a mandatory ID card system too - else you would just get a staggering number of people who "don't speak English" or are "on holiday" all of a sudden.
Combatting terrorism was a "sell it to the public" point which I bet the government are wishing hadn't been so overhyped now - they (and high-scale criminal organisations in general) are the very people who will be able to circumvent the system.

And therein lies a problem. It won't be effective in half the claims the government make for it if you can avoid the need for an ID card by suddenly finding you don't parley the lingo. There'll be, as you say, an awful lot of non-English speaking crooks all of a sudden, and there goes the anti-crime aspects and anti-terrorism aspects. Oh, maybe it'll be effective (to some degree at least) in combatting benefit fraud, but if that is the sum total of the benefits, it's using a strategic nuke to crack a nut.

But I don't agree that they can't make carrying it compulsory unilaterally. Of course they can. They just pass a piece of legislation requirinig you to carry it and apply a substantial prison sentence if you don't. How will they know if you are a UK citizen or not? Well, the National Identity Register carries biometric data, so they plonk you in a police car, stick your finger in a scanner and query the database. One of three things will happen :-

1) you are identified as a UK citizen with a NIR entry.
2) you are identified as a bona-fide foreigner
3) no identification

If 1) happens, you'd better be carrying your card. If 2) happens, you're OK, because, of course, the passport you used to get into the country will be biometric. If 3) happens, you get arrested until you can establish who you are.

Given that there are large-scale authentication systems in existence today which are fully audited down to when people even view records, leaving a trail that cannot be altered without leaving a glaring footprint, this is not as big an issue as people might think.
The biggest risk is the human element, as with any system - but that said I think it's a bit of a leap to get to a dictatorship and UK police state in all honesty.

Does it matter where the weakness is if the system is either insecure or unreliable? I don't much care whether the problem is human or systemic - if it isn't perfect, there's too much riding on it to risk it.

The point about the police state is perhaps not as far-fetched as you think. Do some research into some of the quiet amendments this Labour government have made into the balance of power, and some of the moves they've tried to make. Look at the reforms of the Lords, and look at some of the changes that have been made in the judicial system. The take a look at the change in the status of Quango's (not the number of them, but their make-up and spending power). But a 'police state' is obviously an extreme situation - yet the point remains valid. Such a national ID system would be a powerful tool in the wrong hands, and once the genie is out of the bottle (by permitting such a system) it'll prove impossible to get it back in the bottle again. Hence me saying that unless the benefits of such a system are overwhelming, we should refuse them. And I'm not convinced of the benefits. I'm very far from convinced, either on economic grounds or on freedom and privacy grounds.

[Pete]

well if u wanna stop crime and terrorism why dont they just chip us all and make nothing secret thatll stop it full stop then they can just subliminally make us give them thousands of pounds to pay for it?
or we could have the id cards which are cheaper, dont turn us into cyborgs and will do nearly the same job, if they work
Pete