ID cards 'to be made compulsory' - 13 comments
Maybe it's just that it's 5.00 am, but it's hard to respond to this with much more than monosyllables:
Identity cards will be made compulsory if Labour wins the next election, Home Secretary Charles Clarke has said.Groan
"I would be very surprised if the next Conservative manifesto said 'stop the scheme'. It would be very difficult to do," he said.Very principled (sorry, that's 5)
He said the opt-out had been introduced to allay fears expressed in the House of Lords that cards would be "foisted" on people.Sigh
But he added: "I don't think there is any benefit in opting out at all. Anyone who opts out in my opinion is foolish."
He declined to give further details of the costs, but ministers have already said the combined cost of a passport and ID card will be £93.
[Lib Dem] Home affairs spokesman Nick Clegg said: "Within hours of parading their so-called compromise the Home Office is already making it clear that it was little more than a tactical manoeuvre to ram this legislation through Parliament without any substantive change to the Draconian reach and financial costs of the ID database...I think he's right - sorry.
Mr Clarke said he believed there was an "appetite" among the public for ID cards, which he said would bring "massive benefits" for banks, law enforcement agencies and "the individual citizen".Problem is that these same points have been rebutted at length, time and time again. Blogging lulls you into a sense of security: bloggers read, learn, respond, and only a minority continue to push views that have already been discredited.
The scheme would "enable every citizen in this country, over time, to protect their identity from people who seek to defraud," he added.
It's pessimistic, but perhaps the new ID infrastructure has to completely crash and burn as a lesson for future Governments. Until then, much of the opposition can be portrayed as libertarian obsessives who don't inhabit the real-world communities - ravaged by the Evil that is identity fraud - that good old ordinary people do. Many dissenting voices are indeed libertarian obsessives, but as they're the only ones for whom 'free-from' rights seem to have any significance at all, that gives their argument a certain moral authority.
Update: just to clarify a point in the last paragraph, when I say "can be portrayed as libertarian obsessives", I meant it in an 'enabling' sense: "it is possible for some people - for example, the government - in reality, to portray the opposition as...", not in the "can legitimately, realistically, or fairly, be portrayed as libertarian obsessives". I hoped the subsequent and slightly tongue-in-cheek reference to the "Evil of identity fraud" (though I don't want to completely trivialise the issue - it happens, and can be serious), as well as the evidence of past posts on this subject, made it clear from which 'side' I am arguing.
![[Valid Atom]](http://www.bloggers4labour.org/images/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom feed")
13 comments so far...
I don't think there's anything new in this BBC article. We said in the 2005 manifesto that ID cards would be rolled out on an initially voluntary basis, linked to passport renewals, and it's been said many a time that we'd put in the next manifesto for the cards to be made compulsory. The whole basis of the arguments with the Lords over the past couple of weeks has been whether it's a "voluntary" gaining of a card if it's linked to the renewal of passports (i.e. do people really have a choice whether to renew their passport or not if they need to go abroad?). That argument was settled this week with the Government accepting that there can be an opt-out, and Clarke's fully within his rights to say that he thinks it'd be much better for people if they *didn't* opt-out. The rest is just Lib Dem mischief making.
I haven't posted much on ID cards (in fact I don't think I've posted at all), but I don't have any raging civil liberty-related objection to them burning in my breast. As far as I'm concerned the Government already has this kind of information on me anyway, and if my identity is more secure in terms of combating fraud then I'm happy to carry a card. They don't have a problem with it in most of Europe.
Frankly I thought that the arguments against were severely damaged by the very biased LSE report of several months ago.
I've seen the benefits of ID cards and an NIR in Sweden and most liberty organisations in Europe are indeed confused by their UK compatriots opposition to ID cards.
However, the biometric technology IS a big risk and so too is a database of this scale. This doesn't necessarily mean the govt is going to mess it up, but the track record of both govt and the private sector is poor on projects like this.
Unlike Rob, I argued the case for ID cards some time ago, and come to the conclusion that most of the opponents are indeed libertarian obsessives unrepresentative of the general population. (All of them opposed CCTV, and some even opposed passports!) BUT they did persuade me that there are significant problems with this scheme despite their exagerated claims of impending doom.
I suppose we are going to have to wait and see if this 10-20bn pound gamble will sink or swim. It is certainly brave (or foolhardy).
It won't be another Poll Tax (12,000 NO2ID supporters is nothing compared to the millions who joined anti-poll tax unions). And an extra 30-50 pounds on a 10 year passport is hardly equivalent to a poll tax of 600 pounds a year! BUT it might turn out a more expensive millenium dome!
Assume, out of the goodness of your hearts, that I'm not a "libertarian obsessive" and that I have no particular opposition to the concept of an ID card.
Still the question remains - what is this scheme good for?
Charles Clarke admitted after the July bombings that ID cards are useless against terrorism - all the terrorists we fear most will have them, or access to the country via the EU.
On illegal immigration, all asylum seekers are at present given an ID card. If, as the government has promised, we won't be forced to carry them then spot-checking people won't work. Of course, if we do spot-check, the community ramifications will be awful (does anyone remember sus?)
So they'll stop illegal working? Nope, not unless bosses who were happy to employ people without NI details get the creeps about doing so without an ID card - an unlikely scenario.
Perhaps they'll cut down benefit fraud? Sadly not - only a tiny fraction of such fraud is identity related (most cases being in the area of "I'm really not working, honest", or "Ooh, my back really hurts").
There is the argument about identity theft, but the tech. community seems pretty unimpressed about how the system can be so big and secure - and, of course, if the NIR data is compromised then *all* our identities will be too. There is the parallel argument about protecting witnesses given new identities: if the biometric details remain the same, they can be cross-checked anywhere where there is a point of entry on to the NIR, rendering a relatively secure system open to unnecessary danger.
All of these arguments sidestep the "crazy libertarian" ones which, on some issues like the reach of the NIR, occassionally do have some merit. And yet these arguments alone demonstrate the folly of spending this colossal amount of money when it could manifestly be better spent.
The fact that it seems so crushingly easy to demolish all of the government's supposed reasons for the scheme either means they are inept (entirely possible) or playing fast and loose with our liberties for some nefarious and, as yet, inexplicable reason (given 90 days, etc., this is equally possible).
there's nothing wrong with being a libertarian obsessive. we're about the only people left to stand up to the Sun for civil liberties these days. Labour's socialism should be a libertarian one, in my view.
Not that things are'nt bad enough already. those of us who are against identity cards are being persecuted, singled out on the basis of our liberal political beliefs, by being denied passports.
Labourites should be proud to be libertarian obsessives. we should of course also be equality and economic success obsessives. Labour Students are so far ahead of the government...
Being on the national exec of Labour Students, I'd say I'm quite chuffed with the fact that it's this Government that adopted Labour Students policy on abolishing discrimination in the provision of goods and services based on sexuality, thanks in part to our lobbying ...
I'm not a libertarian obsessive but I have failed to be convinced as to the benefits of ID cards.I've listened to both sides of the argument and the 'anti' argument has more weight- both moral and practical.I was against the idea when it was first mooted by the Tories for the same reasons-cost and effectiveness.
I don't think the public give a monkey's either way , in fact, it hasn't been raised on the doorstep or in any of our resident surveys as an issue.This may change when they realise they have to get one-or else.
Sorry, it just doesn't feel right.
People, don't get bogged down by the 'libertarian obsessive' remark - it's how I imagined the government would dimiss critics of ID cards. This certainly wasn't a pro- post.
That said, as I've mentioned in the past, there are possible ID card implementations that I might back. This one? No.
For me it would have to be quite soft: it would be one that did not change the existing relationship between citizen and statte, the status quo, and a progressive position nonetheless.
I have problems because I have had my name changed by deed poll-long story. I never received a national insurance card for example, and find it tough to get a passport (now it will be impossible :0) )
just a single number I could quote and be expected to have with me to draw out benefit, for example, would be fine.
But I don't see why they would want my iris scans or DNA, or why I should produce such personal information on demand. nor do I see why such cards should be compulsory for everyone, or indeed compulsory for those who wish to travel abroad.
this aspect may also have implications in european law on free movement of EU citizens, which the government, trying to second guess the court, obviously do not agree with.
watch this space for more legal news. on the scheme.
And on Labour students Rob, well done at NUS conference, it is a shame that NOLS has to lead the government, not the other way round. I'm moving into the same house as Matt Strong next year, pity the housemates...
Sorry if my previous post made it sound as if B4L was pro-ID cards.
All I was trying to say was that in fact I agree with B4L when he says the govt. rejects critics as if they are wild-eyed obsessives.
What is annoying is that - esp. in blogs - the debate centres around the NIR and the frightening "audit trail", and these are important issues.
But it strikes me as terribly frustrating that the stated aims to tackle terrorism/benefit fraud/illegal working/et al. - arguments so easy to see through as meaningless - have not been adequately conveyed to the public.
Elephunt is quite right that most people on the doorsteps don't seem to care, despite both the civil liberties and so-called "practical" cases being so firm against the introduction of this scheme.
In accord with other posts, it seems sensible to have a national ID number. Equally, the NHS might even collate its info into one database (this is patchy at best at a regional level now) so that if I collapse in Stranraer, they can find out I'm allergic to paracetamol from my GP records in Kent.
Yadda yadda yadda. What most of us object to is the collation of all this info in one place for no discernable purpose at great cost.
If the population of the UK actually WANTED ID Cards, they would not need to make them compulsory would they?
Well they could say that there's much less point scanning irises if failing to find a match with a known criminal means there's only, say, a 50% chance that you're definitely not also a known criminal. With 100% coverage (and assuming 100% accuracy), your not matching a known criminal means you cannot be one, and you cease to be a suspect. Popularity of the policy would have nothing to do with it.
apparently neither iris scans, fingerprints, or even dna, is actualy infallible according to latest scientific studies. photos are notoriously unlike their owners,(just check any pasport),rather makes it all a bit pointless, and if a terrorist cant get one of these he`s not much of a terrorist. AND they want YOU to pay for it, talk about adding insult to injury.!
the only reason id cards are being rammed down the throats of the british public is because thats what labours masters in brussels want. and labours masters have no interest in respect for the individual, privacy, or REAL human rights. THEY have a federal, quasi dictatorship called europe to run,and they want to know every damned thing possible about everyone in it. britain is fast becoming the new east germany.
Post a Comment
<< Home