ID Cards in Britain
p2pnet.net News View:- It seems that the Home Office will persevere with its plans to introduce identity cards for the UK population despite the recent reduction in its majority.
The argument is that since the measure was in the Labour manifesto, backbench Labour MPs are obliged to support it. This removes the potential for an embarrassing defeat in the House of Commons and also means that the Lords cannot block it.
It’s a shame that Charles Clarke didn’t use the election period to reflect on the many well-argued criticisms of the plans he inherited from David Blunkett. He had the perfect opportunity to rethink the scheme and fix some of the major flaws, but has declined to take it.
As a result he will face a great deal of opposition in the coming months from campaigning groups like Liberty and NO2ID, both vehemently opposed to identity cards in any form.
He may also face some opposition from closer to home.
The Ideal Government weblog is currently running its own online debate on the proposals in association with the London School of Economics, and it would be surprising if it provided a ringing endorsement of the current plans.
Even the left-leaning Institute of Public Policy Research will ask some hard questions about the way the proposals undermine trust between the state and its citizens when it publishes its ‘Manifesto for a Digital Britain’.
The key change that the new card will bring to our lives is that agents of the state – primarily the police – will be able to stop any of us while we are going about our normal business and ask for proof of identity without having to give a reason.
I’m writing this in a cafe in Cambridge. The barista (it’s that sort of cafe) recognises me because I come in here regularly, but he doesn’t know who I am. I always pay cash, I don’t wear a name badge and I generally come here alone to work, so nobody is saying my name in conversation.
Of course, there’s CCTV outside on the street and an observant operator could track me back to my car and check the registration number. My fingerprints are on the £5 note I paid with, and my DNA is all over the cup I’ve just been drinking from – but if anyone came up to me and asked me my name I could refuse to tell them.
So while there are limits to the degree of privacy I have, most of the time I do indeed go about my life unobserved and unremarked.
Once we have identity cards that must be produced on demand this feeling will vanish, and it will be a significant loss. It will, for one thing, create a much greater sense of ‘us and them’ when it comes to our interaction with the state, even though we live in a democracy.
But whether or not we actually have cards to carry is less important than the proposed national identity register, the vast database that will store all our personal details and allow cards to be issued and verified.
The register, if it is implemented as planned, will mark a fundamental shift in the balance between public and private information. If it works – and large-scale public sector IT projects don’t have a good track record – then it will seriously threaten our civil liberties. And if it doesn’t, and ends up insecure or inaccurate, then it could create massive potential for abuse, identity theft and injustice.
Not exactly a win-win situation.
A major problem is that while the government has passed data protection laws to control the use of personally identifiable data by the private sector, it believes it can do what it wants in the name of national security or mere administrative convenience.
So apart from biometric data like iris scans and fingerprints, the register will also hold details of where we live – or used to live – and also “information about numbers allocated to [the registered individual] for identification purposes… and documents which they relate”.
That jargon means that details of my passport, driving license number, NHS number and National Insurance number will all be linked, giving anyone with access to the database a pretty comprehensive profile of me.
It gets better, because the Home Secretary is allowed to pass the information held on the register on to other parties without telling us, and we will have no right to know if or how this data is being used.
If Nectar tried this then even our impotent and under-staffed Information Commissioner would have something to say, but Charles Clarke seems to think that he can bounce this unwarranted infringement of each person’s right to control how their personal data is used through Parliament and into law.
He may get his way, despite the forces ranged against him. But the passage of the legislation will the mark the beginning of a concerted battle to ensure that the identity register is built and maintained properly, that data protection rights are respected and that we, as citizens, are able to hold our government to account for what it does with our data.
Bill Thompson – andfinally.com
[Thompson is a UK-based writer and broadcaster]
May 23rd, 2005 at 6:42 am
Remember; We have met the enemy and it is us. (POGO)
May 23rd, 2005 at 8:01 am
Bill Thompson wrote:
“The key change that the new card will bring to our lives is that agents of the state – primarily the police – will be able to stop any of us while we are going about our normal business and ask for proof of identity without having to give a reason.”
This is a factual error, as the Government have stated that the police will have no additional powers to demand identity. With the proposed National Identity Scheme, as now, the police will need the same (adequate) reason to demand knowledge of anyone’s identity.
If and when the proposed scheme becomes compulsory (which the Government certainly intends), UK residents would have to use the scheme to demonstrate identity for access to specifically identified Government services, if and only if they wished to use those services. The sole difference from now would be a limitation on the means of identity that would be acceptable.
And again, he wrote:
“Once we have identity cards that must be produced on demand this feeling [a degree of privacy and to go about life unobserved and unremarked] will vanish, and it will be a significant loss.”
With the proposed National Identity Scheme, we will only be obliged to prove identity using it in very limited circumstances, each specified in law by Partliament. This is most unlikely to include satisfying the curiosity of waiters and fellow cafe users, or to obtain the right to drink coffee.
As Bill wrote early in his article, the proposed scheme could be much improved. However, his case is weakened by misrepresenting what is actually proposed, and we the public are made more confused about what changes we should require.
Nigel Sedgwick