National ID Card Debate


Recommended Posts

Officially irrelevant, but we want the ID card anyway

TWO SETS of attacks carried out by coordinated explosions in the London Tube two weeks apart. You know it's time for conspiracy theories. There's a nice page-long round-up that lists the usual suspects: Muslims, Jews, Al-Qaeda, Bush, and the war in Iraq (which isn't a group of people who can conspire together, but still).

Of course, the truly paranoid would rather blame security services in search of yet more ammunition to get themselves surveillance powers. I'd class that as silly ? security services assigned to protect us are far more likely to be opportunists than causative agents ? but that doesn't change the facts: after the 9/11 attacks the first thing that happened was the passage of the PATRIOT Act in the US (a month later) and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime, and Security Act in the UK (three months later).

It was therefore with a sense of considerable wonder and disbelief that ID card opponents heard Home Secretary Charles Clarke tell the BBC's flagship news program, Today the next morning, "I doubt it would have made a difference" when asked whether ID cards would have stopped the attacks. That clearly doesn't mean there won't be other new police powers, especially if the run of attacks gets longer. Blair has already said he'll back any additional powers the security services want, and there are moves afoot to make it easier to deport people deemed to be terrorist threats. Arguably, though, if the country has to pay the costs of restoring the tube system, to say nothing of the infrastructure for the 2012 Olympics, the ID card has become a luxury it can't afford. Not that such an argument ever stopped a government from doing anything, particularly when the system proposed is such a perfect Civil Service wet dream (a national database! oh, yeah, baby, bring it on!).

In fact, since the election, opposition to ID cards has grown. The latest poll, taken the day after the 7/7 attacks, showed support for ID cards had dropped to 50 percent in the UK as a whole, and only 45 percent in London. That was not long after a report issued by 20 academics from the LSE said that the cost of the proposed system could reach ?19 billion rather than the government's more "modest" estimate of ?5.8 billion.

Meantime, the government's majority in favour of the ID cards bill had dropped to 31 at the last vote, held on June 28, with the Conservatives, the LibDems, and even Labour backbenchers now opposed. Even some of those in favour may back away if the bill is not significantly altered by the committee, which has been scrutinising it for the last two weeks.

Speaking on July 8, Gus Hosein, a Visiting Fellow in Information Systems at the London School of Economics and a Fellow of Privacy International, said that seemed unlikely. "The government stacked the committee with very loyal Blairites, and they're saying no to everything, so the bill's not going to change." Back-bench revolt could actually kill the whole thing.

Sadly, Clarke's admission that ID cards would not have prevented the attacks, while deeply satisfying to opponents who've said as much all along, isn't as significant as it should be. This is because in the entire history since World War II, as successive governments have repeatedly considered ID cards (PDF), every time the ID card proposal has surfaced it has been presented as a solution to whatever fear was currently fashionable. In the 1980s the cards were going to prevent football holiganism and street crime. A couple of years ago they were going to prevent terrorism, benefit fraud, illegal asylum seekers, and illegal working, and prove Britons' entitlement to the public services they pay for. Over the eight months since Clarke replaced that most rabid of ID card supporters, David Blunkett, who was forced to resign the Home Secretariat over fast-tracking a visa for his mistress's nanny and writing a book trashing his Cabinet colleagues, we've heard less and less about their preventing terrorism. With the emotional impact of 9/11 worn off, the justification du jour had already changed from preventing terrorism to stopping identity theft.

"When the London attacks first happened," says Simon Davies, head of Privacy International and a Fellow at the LSE, "we thought, well, we're dead in the water." But, "The more we talk to people who live and work in central London, the clearer it becomes that they see little or no connection between an ID card and the events that they just lived through. That, I think, is the clearest message going to politicians. It's OK supporting an abstract connection between ID cards and terrorism, but when you live through it there are far more important items on the agenda, such as better police resources." Davies himself would like to see the government enact a program whereby all schools, universities, and employers train their students and staff in civil defence and first aid. "That would have saved lives in the attacks, and it would continue to do so throughout our national life."

Source: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24843

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, it was immediately obvious that the Labour Government would use the bombings as a prime opportunity to get ID card legislation passed. Personally I am against ID cards, not because I don't want to live in a "police-state," (if the card actually worked) but because I believe in less Government intervention. The scheme is flawed because it would not be compulsary to carry them around all the time - negating their real value. ID cards would just be an extra tax on hardworking, innocent people. :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isnt it ironic that Blair in 1995 was opposed to ID cards and said that the Tory right should be spending more on putting police on the streets instead. I think that time Blair was right. ID cards are going to increase identity theft, just like the Social Security Number has in America. They're also going to gradually be expanded into more and more areas, which is clearly the governments real reasons for having them.

I also agree with the LSE's cost estimate on the whole scenario. The governments reputation of ICT systems is diabolical at best, and the chances of success with this system, without over running the budget, is unrealistic. Interesting I read an article (sorry cant remember where) saying that in the future only a digital photograph will be needed on passports, so clearly Blair is lying (yet again) to the public saying biometrics is where everyone else is heading.

I dont see why they dont just tax us more and barcode us, its cleary what they are inadvertantly trying to do. The people of Britain deserve better than this, Labour are really dragging Britain down in the gutter in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It's OK supporting an abstract connection between ID cards and terrorism, but when you live through it there are far more important items on the agenda, such as better police resources."

586256510[/snapback]

:yes:

The Australian government is still taking the "the world has changed so much since we opposed it all those years ago" angle. People dont buy it..but it doesnt matter.. they have senate majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Numbering people or having them watching by thousands and thousands of camera does not stop crime or terrorism, Guns stop crime and terrorism. Even though in 2008 or 2009 the US will have a ID card, I hope that all the states will oppose it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Numbering people or having them watching by thousands and thousands of camera does not stop crime or terrorism, Guns stop crime and terrorism. Even though in 2008 or 2009 the US will have a ID card, I hope that all the states will oppose it.

586261369[/snapback]

.. the U.S already has ID cards, there called driver's licensees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.. the U.S already has ID cards, there called driver's licensees.

586265178[/snapback]

Some people in Britain and I suspect most places drive illegally, and they arent compulsary, these ID cards WILL be compulsary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people in Britain and I suspect most places drive illegally, and they arent compulsary, these ID cards WILL be compulsary.

586265296[/snapback]

Right, but my point is driver's licenses in the US are compulsory therefor they are the ID system. Anything else would just be mute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, but my point is driver's licenses in the US are compulsory therefor they are the ID system. Anything else would just be mute.

586265346[/snapback]

Compulsary if you drive right? Over here if you dont drive no license. So if you exist you will need a license by ID card standards, and you will have to pay. Paying to exist? :no:

They also want to keep fingerprint, face dimensions and iris scan data on these cards, this is a serious breach of privacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They also want to keep fingerprint, face dimensions and iris scan data on these cards, this is a serious breach of privacy.

586265363[/snapback]

If you really felt your fingers, face and eyes were private you wouldn't go out in public. Everyone can see all those parts of your body, unless you cover yourself up completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you really felt your fingers, face and eyes were private you wouldn't go out in public. Everyone can see all those parts of your body, unless you cover yourself up completely.

586265685[/snapback]

Yes but the people we pass everyday don't keep a huge database of everyone that they pass. And the US ID card is some what mandatory. If you don?t get a ?real id? card you can not board a airplane or go into any federal building, making you a non citizen in the eyes of the federal government. Plus the whole "real id" will make a huge database of everyone in the US with all there info on it, including your SS number which will also be the card it self.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

National IDs are a terrible idea, and I would oppose them no matter the country. Drivers licenses are not a form of national IDs in the United States because each state issues its own license. They can be forged fairly easily and someone checking IDs will not be able to memorize what all 50 IDs look like. A national ID card would be easily identifiable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you really felt your fingers, face and eyes were private you wouldn't go out in public. Everyone can see all those parts of your body, unless you cover yourself up completely.

586265685[/snapback]

National ID cards could easily be used to serve the needs of business. Like they already try to with your adress and phone number, everything could require the use of your ID card for "identification purposes" and track what you buy, where you go, what you do, etc. etc. National ID cards are a horrendous breach of privacy. If not business, then government can do so, and I do not believe government should be able to track what everyone is doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus the whole "real id" will make a huge database of everyone in the US with all there info on it, including your SS number which will also be the card it self.

586266026[/snapback]

... like the S.S already has?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... like the S.S already has?

586268632[/snapback]

I think the point is if you lose your ID card its very hard for the government to reissue you with a new fingerprint. :p The fingerprint system will be used to access public services such as health care etc.

The only way they can do it without breaching too much privacy in my opinion is by making it like a chip and pin card. Where you have a 4 digit number to access your details or services. And the only details stored about you are relevant and not biometric, perhaps a digital photograph? At least if your card is stolen no one knows anything about you without the pin, you can have a new one reissued and a new pin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the whole "waste of money" argument, but I don't see exactly how it violates privacy.

586270400[/snapback]

Because no one has the right to have your details unless you have commited a crime or something. Besides the biometric technology is not reliable or developed enough according to the research, they said the chances of peoples fingerprints being mis matched and so forth is high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides the biometric technology is not reliable or developed enough according to the research, they said the chances of peoples fingerprints being mis matched and so forth is high.

586270584[/snapback]

Biometrics, now that I can understand as something that should remain private. Anything else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biometrics, now that I can understand as something that should remain private. Anything else?

586271713[/snapback]

No government has the right to take your biometric details only the police if entirely necessary. I dont have a problem with them taking a digital photo and some basic details such as height, weight etc, but not biomertrics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No government has the right to take your biometric details only the police if entirely necessary. I dont have a problem with them taking a digital photo and some basic details such as height, weight etc, but not biomertrics.

586272932[/snapback]

Why is your finger print any different then your photo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is your finger print any different then your photo?

586273518[/snapback]

They want to use your fingerprint or eye scans for everything. An ID card may have a few uses now, but before you know it they will be used for everything. Its going to increase ID fraud so much. Its ludicris, that stuff should stay in the movies.

Edited by ziadoz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.