UK ID Cards - for or against?

[Paul Adams]

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.

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

Indeed, which is why I agreed with your overall assertion that if (and only if) it's viable and productive then it should be implemented.
On this point I believe we are in full agreement

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.

[snipped further assertions as to why it will/can be compulsory]

The carrying of an ID card is, IMO, not going to be compulsory - the presentation of a card is your claim to your identity, the biometric data held on a central database is proof* of your identity, so the card itself (as you pointed out) is not necessary to prove you are who you say you are.
(* it would have to be a combination of biometrics to qualify as "proof", as they have already determined no single piece of such data is guaranteed to be unique, or the scanning equipment can be subject to confusion)

That's the case if you are stopped on suspicion of some misdemeanour or other - if the ID is required for the purchase of goods, undertaking of services or opening of accounts, then it is only "compulsory" if you wish to perform these (none too common) actions.

Conversely, if you suspect someone of a crime and they show you an ID card on demand, do you take that and assume this is who they are?

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.

Yes, I honestly do believe it matters where a weakness lies - no system is perfect as soon as the human element is introduced, but if the system itself is imperfect then it should never even be implemented, or considered for implementation.
The human element is always an unknown, so all that can be done is to put in a regime to mitigate the risk as best as can be done - hopefully better than airport security post-bombscare!

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.

I've already stated that on the economic front it needs to be a more proven argument with statistics, but one has to assume that if they are looking at spending this money then there must be some tangible benefits.
If it's going to replace the driver's licence, national insurance card and NHS card, say so and give running costs for those.
If it's going to save on benefit fraud, prevent money laundering, etc., give an estimate as to the amount.
If it's going to reduce administration costs and increase efficiency within the civil service, tell us how much man-hours/money is being saved.

If it's a benefit to us personally, such as the prevention of identity theft or possibly (ahem) terrorism, I'd like to hear how (in as much detail as they can give us safely) - though there's no £££ value to directly associate with either.
If a person is found comatose with no ID and can be taken to hospital for treatment because their blood type/allergies to medication are stored on an medical database once their ID is determined by the NIR, is that not a benefit?

What, exactly, are the main "privacy" concerns?
This is what I truly don't understand.
What is it that people feel is being taken away from them that they have not already "given up" if they own a driver's licence or passport, have a bank account or mortgage, or even have a criminal record?

What information do you believe would be stored, that is not already available to "them" through any of the multitude of disparate systems the government has?

What "freedom" do you lose?
(Let's assume for the sake of argument that carrying an ID card is not made compulsory.)
Taking away freedom implies you are now unable to do something or go somewhere, at least to me.

[Rave]

but one has to assume that if they are looking at spending this money then there must be some tangible benefits.

Well, one only has to assume that if you credit the people running the government with any intelligence, which I personally don't.

What, exactly, are the main "privacy" concerns?
This is what I truly don't understand.
What is it that people feel is being taken away from them that they have not already "given up" if they own a driver's licence or passport, have a bank account or mortgage, or even have a criminal record?

Well a criminal record is not really a valid case- if you choose to break the law, then you give up some of your right to privacy as a result. I personally feel that, as someone who does not break the law, I should not be compelled to present myself for biometric profiling. I pay my taxes, hence I've done my duty as a citizen, now leave me alone.

What information do you believe would be stored, that is not already available to "them" through any of the multitude of disparate systems the governmnt has?

Um...my biometric data, for a start. Disparate parts of the government (like the NHS for example) probably have disparate pieces of information about me, but at present the Data Protection Act puts very clear and defined limits on what can be done with that information- the police as far as I know could not compel the NHS to disclose to them my blood type without at least a warrant. I am not sure what limits would be put on the uses the data on the central database could be put to- if they're talking about combatting terrorism, I'm assuming the police would be allowed pretty straight acces to the data. As I said, I'm not a criminal, so in theory I have nothing to fear, but I know from experience that a sizeable proportion of the police aren't very clever, and that a small proportion are nasty pieces of work. I'd rather they didn't have unfettered access to my data.

What "freedom" do you lose? (Let's assume for the sake of argument that carrying an ID card is not made compulsory.)

Well, your supposition that carrying the card wouldn't be compulsory is fairly pointless, because the draft legislation clearly does state that the intention is that card carrying will become compulsory- otherwise as Saracen pointed out, there's precious little point to having it.

(* it would have to be a combination of biometrics to qualify as "proof", as they have already determined no single piece of such data is guaranteed to be unique, or the scanning equipment can be subject to confusion)

Ah, now this is the good part. The biometric datatypes that they have proposed to use are (as far as I have heard) fingerprints, retina scans and facial recognition. I would be perfectly happy to burn off all my fingerprints if that was chosen as one of the datatypes (in an 'accident' of course). I wouldn't go so far as to poke out my eyes, but I have unusually long eyelashes which I have heard makes retina scanning very difficult. The US government's efforts to implement facial recognition scanning have been a failure according to the Register, but even if they can get it to work that's only one type of data they'll be able to get from me, and as you say at least two types will be necessary. Basically the government isn't going to have much luck when they try to collect my biometric data. What then?

Rich :¬)

[Paul Adams]

What information do you believe would be stored, that is not already available to "them" through any of the multitude of disparate systems the government has?

Um...my biometric data, for a start. Disparate parts of the government (like the NHS for example) probably have disparate pieces of information about me, but at present the Data Protection Act puts very clear and defined limits on what can be done with that information- the police as far as I know could not compel the NHS to disclose to them my blood type without at least a warrant. I am not sure what limits would be put on the uses the data on the central database could be put to- if they're talking about combatting terrorism, I'm assuming the police would be allowed pretty straight acces to the data. As I said, I'm not a criminal, so in theory I have nothing to fear, but I know from experience that a sizeable proportion of the police aren't very clever, and that a small proportion are nasty pieces of work. I'd rather they didn't have unfettered access to my data.

Okay, well biometric data was pretty much a given - what is it about your biometric data that is so secret?
If that's a start as to the information stored, which is a requirement for the identification process itself, what other actual personal data do you think will be held?

As for assuming the police have straight access to the data, it's not even certain they will be able to demand to see an ID card (see P.I. quote below).

You know from personal experience that a "sizeable proportion of the police aren't very clever"?
Between this and Saracen's assertion that the UK will turn into a police state, it doesn't paint a very pretty picture for our future

Well, your supposition that carrying the card wouldn't be compulsory is fairly pointless, because the draft legislation clearly does state that the intention is that card carrying will become compulsory- otherwise as Saracen pointed out, there's precious little point to having it.

I can't find anything to support this theory of compulsory carrying of the card, in fact Privacy International's own FAQ states:

Is the card likely to be compulsory?

Yes, but the government has convoluted this crucial point. Government ministers have almost unanimously ruled out the option for legal compulsion to carry a card, as indeed they have generally backed away from suggestions that the police will be given powers to demand production of a card. However, according to answers given on July 3rd, it is likely that the government will require everyone to register for a card. In this respect a parallel has been drawn with the voting system, in which registration is compulsory, but the act of voting is optional.

This prospect was made transparent when Mr Blunkett said in his launch speech "In a Parliamentary answer on 5 February, I ruled out a compulsory card scheme-compulsory in the sense that the card would have to be carried by each individual at all times. As I made clear, any scheme that was eventually approved would not entail police officers or other officials stopping people in the street to demand their card. We are not, therefore, consulting on that option."

from the Home Office website:

The Government, through Parliament, would make ID cards compulsory when the technology is seen to be working, take-up reaches an appropriate level and public acceptability of the card enables the implementation of a universal scheme. It will not be compulsory to carry a card.

from SourceUK.net on the draft bill itself:

The Draft Bill sets out the legislative framework needed to build the scheme, including:
Setting up the ’national identity register’ - the key database of personal information which the biometric cards would link to.

Creating a ’family’ of ID cards, based on designated existing and new documents.

Establishing important privacy safeguards - limiting the disclosure and use of information, including in what limited circumstances, on the grounds of national security or for the prevention or investigation of crime, and ensuring there is independent oversight of these arrangements.

Establishing new criminal offences for the possession of false identity documents - covering the new identity card as well as existing identity documents.

Enabling a date to be set when it would become compulsory to register and be issued with a card (but not compulsory to carry a card, which is specifically prohibited in the Draft Bill).

If this is the draft bill in question, it clearly states it will not be compulsory to carry it.

Ah, now this is the good part. The biometric datatypes that they have proposed to use are (as far as I have heard) fingerprints, retina scans and facial recognition. I would be perfectly happy to burn off all my fingerprints if that was chosen as one of the datatypes (in an 'accident' of course). I wouldn't go so far as to poke out my eyes, but I have unusually long eyelashes which I have heard makes retina scanning very difficult. The US government's efforts to implement facial recognition scanning have been a failure according to the Register, but even if they can get it to work that's only one type of data they'll be able to get from me, and as you say at least two types will be necessary. Basically the government isn't going to have much luck when they try to collect my biometric data. What then?

Erm, you're starting to sound a little like the character Kevin Spacey plays in "Se7en", mate
Maybe they'll be inundated with citizens pefectly happy to do such things, so will move on to DNA sampling in the future...

[oralpain]

I live in the US not the UK, but I think anything like this anywhere is a bad idea.

[Saracen]

Between this and Saracen's assertion that the UK will turn into a police state,....

Hey, I didn't say that. At least, I don't THINK I said that.

What I said was :-

1) It would be a powerful tool IF we get a less-than-comfortably democratic government
2) Don't assume it couldn't happen. It probably won't, but it COULD
3) Blair et al. have already eroded a fair few of our democratic protections. That much is a fact.

Point 1) is a concern. Once such a system is established and the data is collected, it's hard to uncollect. At a practical level, such uncollection and unestablishing simply isn't going to happen. At the moment, much of the abuse of such a system is only a potential, but should it ever get to be more than a potential, it would be a VERY powerful weapon in such people's hands. Therefore, I want an overwhelmingly convincing reason to take such a chance.

Therefore it's not that I think this will turn the UK into a police state, or that I expect the UK to turn into a police state, but merely the power that such a tool would give the authorities IF we turn into a police state, and that COULD happen.

[Saracen]

Paul, I agree that the government's current stance is that the card will NOT be compulsory to carry. Blunkett has madethat clear. It WILL, according to the Home Office consultation document and the draft legislation itcontains, be compulsory to have one, to be registered and therefore to have your biometric data on record, but NOT to carry the card.

However, have you ever heard of the thin end of the wedge? Creeping legislation?

Think about the way the EEC was marketed by governments, for a moment. I don;t know how old you are or whether you tremember this but I do, clear as a bell. The EEC was a TRADE association, designed to promote TRADE between European countries. It was called the "European Economic Community", the EEC.

Even then, we the people were NOT asked if we wanted to join. We were taken in without consultation, and then (having committed ourselves, and cut links with previous Cokmonwelath trading partners like Australia and New Zealand) asked if we wantedto pull out. THAT is what the referendum was. It's a bit like me tieing a rope to your wrist and pushing you over a cliff, then asking if you want me to keep hold of the rope or not? Hobson's choice.

And what else were we told about the EEC? We were told, categorically and emphatically, :-

• we will NOT have a common passport
• we will NOT have common currency
• we will NOT have common borders
• we will NOT have unified legislative systems
• we will NOT have common welfare systems
• we will NOT have our courts overruled by Brussels
• we will NOT have a common army
• we are NOT, categorically NOT heading for a federal European state.

We already have, without being asked and flat-out contradicting what we were promised, all of those (in part of in full) except the last, and my feeling is that anyone that thinks we aren't well on the way to a Fedeal Europena State is politically naive.

Don't, for one moment, believe that just because the government says the card will not be compulsory to have (to be registered) that it won't become compulsory to carry it, or to produce it on demand. It is my belief (and as such I can't prove it) that it will. Not this year or next year, maybe not for 10 years, but it WILL happen.

These are politicans. They aren't in the business of doing what we want, they are in the business of doing what THEY want and getting it past us however they can. Blunkett knows full well that there is a lot of concern over ID cards, so he pushes all the topical hot buttons (terrorism, asylum, benefit fraud, crime, etc) and tells us what he has to tell us to stand a chance of getting this scheme adopted. IF, suppose IF he said that the card would be compulsory to carry, then it raises all the questions I raised earlier earlier about enforcement and criminalising of people for nothing more than NOT carrying it, and THAT would be electorally unpopular. He ain;t about to do that at the moment.

But, once the system is established and in place, once the Register is operating and populated with data, it is my firm belief that we will see (probably without being asked) "legislation creep" and that having the card will suddenly no longer be enough. After all, the argument will go, the card exists and we all have one, so why not make the most of the potentials it offers to defeat criminals by making them produce it on demand? Oh, and that means we all do, but why not if you haven't got anything to hide?

You see, I get the feeling that you still largely trust politicians. I don't. I attribute the lowest and most cynical motives to most of them, and I've met a fair few of them. I've even been invited to formal events in Downing Street, though only by the Chancellor - I'm still waiting for a Prime Ministerial one. I've met a number of senior (very senior) Tory politicians and a close relative is a VERY senior Labour politican. I know too many of these people to trust them very far.

Therefore, UNLESS they can come up with an overwhelmingly convincing reason for why a system like this is in our best interests (and to my mind, they haven't even got close to that), it is NOT something we should trust them with. I don't give my house or cars keys to a thief and take his word for it that he won't steal from me. Instead, I put alarm systems on the house and car ..... and maybe CCTV too.

It's a cost-benefit thing for me. I can see all sorts of cost aspects to this ID card business, and bugger-all real benefit.

[Saracen]

One more thing. How long before "biometric" data gets expanded to include DNA profile?

THAT has all sorts of potential for abuse, including commercially, if (for instance) it becomes possible to identify genetic susceptibility to cancer, heart problems etc.

Creeping legislation again?

The time to stop this, in the absence of an overwhelming case for the benefits, is now, before it ever gets started.

[Paul Adams]

Between this and Saracen's assertion that the UK will turn into a police state,....

Hey, I didn't say that. At least, I don't THINK I said that.

Apologies, badly worded on my part - I was going off the statement:

The point about the police state is perhaps not as far-fetched as you think.

I didn't mean to put words into your mouth

Do we take it that in contrast to your original post where you put yourself in the "need more information" camp, you are now firmly on the "let's never let this system get implemented" side?
I appreciate you said it would be hard to convince you of the benefits or for you to have faith in the stated reasons or costs by the government, but given your most recent views I don't see how anyone possibly could convince you otherwise if it comes down to a pure "trust" issue?


I'm afraid I can't really enter a debate about the EEC/EU for 2 reasons:
i) I was only born the year of the first referendum
ii) I'm opposed to it anyway

I did, however, do a quick review of the history of the EEC and found the initial post-WW2 speech by Winston Churchill in 1946 where he said we must build a "United States of Europe", and this speech triggered the creation of the Council of Europe - the idea has probably fascinated UK governments year after year following that.
They must be able to see some monumental benefits or cost savings that I somehow cannot, given how Norway and Switzerland seemed to cope GDP-wise!

Anyway, getting sidetracked and out of my depth on that issue, and I understand it was simply an illustration on your part of why you don't trust the government (or simply trust them to lie to you ).

You may consider my apparent faith in the government misguided, and maybe I'll be proven to be horribly wrong, but I can't see how it is even possibly a manageable system to demand citizens carry ID cards for production on request, and I have to believe this has been considered and rejected by any sane person
This does not devalue the ID card principle if it is still used in a practical manner, for infrequent applications of licences, grants & benefits or for accounts open to potential abuse for identity theft and money laundering.


I think there are enough "non-infringing" biometric identifiers without any need for DNA samples and I agree wholeheartedly that to try to expand the system to hold that would be an incredibly bad move.
I consider fingerprints or retina scans reasonable solutions to provide very reliable two-factor authentication, but there is no justifcation for that degree of information to be stored on anyone but criminals IMO.
(For those following this thread that aren't aware of what two-factor authentication is, it is proof of identity based on something you have and something you know - such as an ATM card and PIN.)

But, by the same naive token, I wouldn't like to think the people governing our country would be daft as to contemplate that as a practical component which is compulsory in any ID system.


So whilst it may be considered of much more significant value to have a system in which it is compulsory to carry a card and for the register to hold detailed DNA information, at the same time this would be much more infringing on civil liberties, unnecessary and entirely impractical.
If I had your conviction that these two events were likely then I would share your opinion that such a system should not be instated in the first place.

[Saracen]

The "not as far fetched as you think" remark was illustrating that our existing government has been quietly eroding long-held civil protections in several of the things it has done. For instance, the House of Lords reform. OK, hereditary peers are hardly democratic and I won't cry any tears for those that lost their seats (even though I know a couple of them, and they are knowledgeable and dedicated people and moreover, without a political axe to grind).

However, if you destroy a centuries-old system in the name of democracy, surely it is behoven on you to :-

1) Replace it with something democratic
2) To have at least worked out what-the <bleep> you're going to replace it with before scrapping the old system

Instead, we got a system loaded with Tony’s Cronies and even the "People’s" representatives are hardly drawn from the ranks of Joe Public. Frankly, the whole episode stinks to high heaven. And is just ONE example of how this government has systematically eroded democratic protections. I mentioned a few others.

Personally, I feel the House of Lords reforms ought to have been the subject of a referendum. It is a core part of our democratic process, yet Blair and his pals just changed it, apparently on a whim and without thinking it through. They SHOULD have worked out what they were going to do before starting, and they SHOULD have asked the people over such a core change.

The result is that with these protections removed, it would be a lot easier now for an inimical government to come to power. Ending up with a police state in the UK doesn't necessarily have to come about because of a military take-over. We could do it to ourselves.

Also, the phrase "police-state" is rather pejorative, and perhaps ill-defined. Where does a police-state start? Is it when the government carries out massive surveillance on it's citizens? We have that now, in the form of Echelon and CCTV cameras. Is it when personal privacy is severely eroded or removed? Take a look at what powers section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 give to the Secretary of State over to whom, and under what circumstances, YOUR private medical information can be disclosed. Basically, he can do what he likes, and just has to say its "in the national interest". If it was "in the national interest" for your medical data to be disclosed to the insurance industry, well, woops!

Then take a look at the effect of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and of the extension the government tried to get through as to exactly what government departments, right down to local councils, had access to all sorts of personal information.

Oh, I could go on about these erosions all day. They have built and built and built, and I'd bet 99.9% of people have no clue about most of them even existing, or if they do, no idea of the provisions.

As for the EU thing, yes, it was an example (but a supremely important one) of the contempt with which successive governments (Labour and Tory) have treated the people. So if they can do it over that, why not ID cards? The Tories proposed similar schemes a couple of times, and dropped them in the face of massive public disapproval, and this was LONG before Al Qaida started causing panic here. That's partly why I'm so cynical about government motives for proposing this scheme now, especially given the buttons they've pushed in promoting them. It strikes me as another Weapons of Mass Disappearance issue. Smoke and mirrors.

I said I was in the "need more information" camp, and I am. I an open to being convinced, if, as I said, an overwhelming case can be made justifying them. I have not rejected it out of hand, but neither are my objections formed without having given it serious consideration.

My view is this. It is :-

1) Going to be VERY expensive
2) An erosion of civil liberties
3) Open to the potential of VERY serious abuse
4) No doubt going to be subject to "aims creep"

In the light of that, what overwhelming benefit do we get? Will it catch terrorists? Will it massively reduce crime? Will the money it is going to cost (and if we're spending it on this, it isn't being spent on something else, like schools, hospitals, public transport or merely on conventional policing methods), let alone the civil liberties issues, be justified?

So far, I've seen nothing remotely resembling a convincing justification from the government - just a lot of scare-mongering from politicians and that, frankly, makes me all-the-more sceptical.

[t01dmw3]

i dont mind carrying one, i have to use one everyday anyway so an extra one wouldnt really hurt

[nichomach]

Firstly, can we please stop with the assumption that democratic freedoms have only been attacked under this government? I agree with a lot of your points, Saracen, and I think that the statement by Richard Thomas (the Information Commissioner) that his view of the plans has changed from healthy scepticism to "increasing alarm" ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06...acks_id_cards/) gives the lie to the idea that there are no privacy implications in the introduction of the ID card scheme, but can we remember that this has been a steady erosion under successive governments? It wasn't Labour that removed the right to silence, or massively expanded stop-and-search powers from the 80s onwards. I agree that Straw, Blunkett et al have expanded such encroachments considerably, but anyone who assumes that the Tories wouldn't have done exactly the same or worse is frankly naive. What we have to face is the fact that neither of the main parties give a damn about civil liberties unless they're in opposition and can beat the incumbent government about the head with them. When in power, civil liberties are an inconvenience to be curtailed or removed.

As to what misuse may be made of our data, consider the example of census data. This is personally identifiable data which we are assured will not be used for any other purpose than that stated. Yet we know that successive governments have secured a nice little earner for themselves by selling the data, which you are legally obliged to provide, to direct marketing companies "anonymised" by removal of names and addresses, which names and addresses may be trivially reinserted by cross-referencing with public records. Note that; you are legally obliged to provide the data, you are assured that it is only to be used for a given purpose, yet it is sold on in the full knowledge that commercial organizations will de-anonymize it and use it for direct marketing. Now think about the data you will be obliged to provide for an ID card, and how valuable that data is. It's a racing certainty that any data provided will be misused, and that's only one example of how it could be. Do you want your biometric data to be the property of whichever company can pay for it? Hello Minority Report...

[Saracen]

Firstly, can we please stop with the assumption that democratic freedoms have only been attacked under this government? I agree with a lot of your points, Saracen, .........

Who's assuming that? I've said that our democratic protections (rather than freedoms) are under attack but I certainy didn't say (or even, in my view, imply) "only" under New Labour.

I am firmly of the opinion that the current government are worse than any other in recent history in this regard BUT I'm certainly not pretending that either previous Tory (or even previous Labour) governments are innocent little angels. I don't have a terribly high opinion of almost any politican. So I've referred to the actions of New Labour as being the most aggressive in this department, by methods both overt and insidious, but merely to illustrate that problems in this area could happen - and arguably are already have.

[Matt1eD]

1. I don't want to pay for them
2. Bloody stupid when as it wouldn't replace all other cards like mobile top-up, library, credit, debit, passport, driving licence, store cards e.t.c.

P.S. I haven't read anyone elses posts in this thread.

Addy: looking over some of it some good points have come up

[skuzgib]

WTF? You haven't read anyone elses posts in the thread, yet you still perform threadomancy on a >1yr old thread

[Rave]

Well, while I agree it's some fairly random bumpage- now is a good time for it. Apparently from October the passport agency want to start issuing passports with intrusive tracking chips on them, so if you want at least ten years exemption from Big Brother watching you get a new one SOON!

http://www.pledgebank.com/passport

I sure as hell will be.

[samriley]

i really see no poing in them, just like anything else they will be forged. its just a waste of money on a massive scale... kinda reminds me of the millenium dome... how well spent that money was.