Blunkett Backs Down on UK ID Cards

Anonymous Brave Guy writes "Some people don't like the civil rights concerns. Some think they'll cost too much. Some think they'll lead to more identity theft than identity verification. Some think governments can't manage big database projects and there are bound to be mistakes and over-runs. Any way you look at it, compulsory ID cards have a lot of potential drawbacks, so is the UK's Home Secretary, David Blunkett, starting to back down from the idea? Combining ID cards with passports and driving licenses was the key way to force them on an often unwilling UK population, and seems to have gone for good, but apparently legislation to bring in some form of ID card is still likely in the next Queen's Speech. Is it the beginning of the end of a bad idea, or just more spin to dodge the remaining concerns?"

Comments

Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how?

[TuataraShoes]

You don't mind having to identify yourself on demand?!

Then why did you post as an Anonymous Coward?

This headline is all wrong!

[lga]

David Blunkett is not backing down on ID cards.

The headline is misleading. The change that the BBC is referring to is that the the government will not make the ID card the same item as the passport and the driving license like the government was originally planning.

What has not changed is that anyone applying for a passport will still have to submit to biometric data collection, pay an extra fee for a new card, and be issued an ID card. The Register is more informative on the subject than the BBC in this case.

David Blunkett is still ignoring criticism of the scheme from the Home Office Affairs Committee, the public consultation, and thousands of people writing in to object. Not only that, but he knows that most of the members of parliment object as well so he has lied constantly about what the card will be and do in order to get parliment to accept it. It started out as an imigrants entitlement card, then an NHS card, then a voluntary ID card, and now it's to be compulsory to be issued a card but not to carry it. Expect that to change soon after everyone has one.

Re:i was thinking about them today...

[TuataraShoes]

I appreciate your comment, and I believe you about your experience in Sweden.

The threat does not necessarily come from the current government. It may be the next government, or the one after that that targets you.

In Britain we have a British National Party which wants to stop a lot of the foreigners getting in. It is not a very tasteful policy, but it is a legal expression of a political view point. People are now loosing their jobs as police officers and school teachers if they are associated with the BNP. This is just one step away from having your career prospects damaged if you are NOT a member of the ruling New Labour Party.

You see, governments are led by people who love to exercise power. In Britain, there is political pressure from these political leaders to exercise power over what we can say and think. There is talk of laws against 'hate speech'. Of course, hate-speech is defined by current moral fashions.

A national identity database can hold details of who is a potential terrorist, who speaks out against the government... All this can be brought up on someone's screen without my knowledge. This is what is so different from drivers' licenses, etc. You don't know who has access to that information about you, or how it is used.

So, Tigress from Sweden, you may have a benevolent government in Sweden now, but beware how much power over your life and privacy you cede to it!

A real "nightmare scenario" might be different

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

What you are proposing is doing without something now, that has benefits now, just in case of some nightmare future scenario that probably won't happen, where doing without the thing wont help you much anyway.

I submitted the article. One of the reasons I feel strongly about this issue myself is that I was once left hundreds of pounds short in my pay cheque after someone in a government tax office mistyped a National Insurance number (similar to a SSN, for those who have them instead) and entered mine instead. I've mentioned this here before, but here are a few scary details in summary.

1. The first I knew about it was on pay day, when my pay cheque was short. No-one from either the tax office or my employer's accountant had questioned the change or asked me to confirm it.
2. It took three months to clear up, luckily just in time for the end of the tax year or it would have been much more complicated.
3. When I rang the tax office to report the problem, they would not talk to me because I couldn't confirm my current details as seen on their computer system. They had no record or my current or past employers showing, nor of my current or previous addresses, because the error had mixed up my records with someone else's. Without that information, they stonewalled me.
4. It was only when I mentioned the change in my tax code, which first caused the problem, that they realised what might have happened and looked deeper. It turns out that the new code I had been given is used automatically in cases where someone has two jobs, and obviously it combined with my story to trigger a mental alarm bell in the person I was talking to at the time.
5. The accumulated records of all the tax offices I eventually had to deal with put me living in two places on opposite sides of the country, working two full-time jobs simultaneously, one at each place. The system hadn't noticed this, and didn't even flag it for their operators to investigate.

The problem with this sort of database isn't just malicious use for things like identity theft or government interference. Good old user error is just as big a danger, and probably a lot more likely.