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

i was thinking about them today...

[johansalk]

Well, ever the thinker, I was thinking about them as I was admiring our little society today as i walked through a typical UK small-city center. No, keep ID cards and militarized police with their guns away from our peaceful, naturally liberal spots.

Re:i was thinking about them today...

[TuataraShoes]

With ever increasing requirements to have your identity recorded by government, shown on demand, and your actions tracked... there is a fundamental shift in the relationship between the people and the state.

GOOD

• Government must serve people
• Policeman at door must identify himself to citizen
• People left alone to prosper - no presumption of guilt
• Government accountable to people

BAD

• Government monitor people
• Policeman require people (doing nothing wrong) to identify themselves
• People tracked to see if they are doing anything wrong
• People must justify themselves to government

Ask yourself, who serves whom?

Re:i was thinking about them today...

[jcr]

To put it in British terms: are they citizens or subjects?

-jcr

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!

Re:i was thinking about them today...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see that there are clear benefits to be derived from the introduction of ID cards, but the civil liberties issues do concern me.

Yes, the British government consists of 'ordinary people in the UK', making decisions for the '(perceived) best interest of the nation as a whole'. So were many other democratically elected governments that curbed the movement, freedom of speech, general liberties and in some cases the lives of 'citizens / subjects' that were perceived to be a threat to the nation as a whole.

Such governments have existed in the past, and will probably occur in the future. Often the incremental moves towards such a forms mean that the line between 'Protecting Society' and 'Too Far' becomes blurred.

ID cards would enable greater power to be exerted by all forms of governments. A bout of a UK strain of McCatrthyism could result in some citizens being "accidentally" added to lists of paedophiles or terrorists.

I'm not sure whether the benefits outweigh the risks associated with the project. Besides, and let's face it, the government is bound to cock it up.

Re:i was thinking about them today...

[tigress]

That's partially my point. National ID card or database or not, it all depends on how it's used.

Data will be collected and stored in a database regardless of wether it's a centralized database or several databases at a number of different organizations.

What people should be fighting is not a national ID system but the ABUSE of such a system, and for that matter, the abuse of the CURRENT systems, that happen too frequently already.

Yes, the secret police here in Sweden did register who was a potential terrorist, and who spoke out against the government during the 50s and 60s. However, that was illegal and it was all collected and brought up on people's screens without the knowledge of the people being investigated. They had no idea who had access to the information about them, or how it was used.

This isn't much different from what's happened in other countries though and the existance or lack of a national ID database wouldn't have stopped this practice in the slightest. In fact, in many countries that did not HAVE a national ID system, things got way worse. And I'm talking about western countries here.

Re:i was thinking about them today...

[biglig2]

We have a contract with the state; we give it power over us so it can improve our quality of life. But states are made of humans, and humans are failable, and corruptable. So we put curbs and controls in place to the state's power.

Now, the current Govt. in the UK seems to have made the thought process:
"unwritten constituion=we can do anything we want" and has gone beserk with vague and ill thought out constitutional change.

Look at Hunting. They intend to use the Parliament act to force it through the Lords. Think about that for a moment. The Lords is a mechanism to prevent Parliament enacting bad law. The Parliament act is a way to overrule that check in an emergency - for example if the Lords is blocking a Finance act and so preventing the Govt doing anything. The hunting bill isn't an emergency. Regardless of it's merits either way, it's not an emergency. What it is, is politically necessary for Tony Blair to keep control of activists in his party. Not the same thing.

Anyway, dragging myself closer to the topic:

Is it pretty unlikely to be added to the list of terrorists? Ask Ted Kennedy about that one. ;-)

Is it going to be compulsory? You yourself insist that it should be needed to get health care or to buy a beer in a pub or to get a job. That sounds pretty compulsory to me.

The expense will be huge. I cannot recall a major computer system implementation in the UK that has not been a complete disaster. Air traffic control? Disaster. Magistrate Court? Disaster. Passport Office? Disaster. Criminal background checks on School employees? Disaster. and on and on.

In fact, my objections to this scheme are almost entirely theoretical because I don't reckon they have the ability to implment it. ;-)

Here's another point: what about the guy who just got jailed for providing information from the DVLA databases to terrorists? Or the temp, who used to work for a newspaper, that got employed by the Cabinet Office, and is being investigated for leaking to the press? You trust people with that kind of hiring record?

We must envisage worst case scenarios. Hitler was democratically elected. to return to my first point: every Govt. is corrupt in one way or another, because it is full of people.

Re:i was thinking about them today...

[TuataraShoes]

That's interesting, and I'm sure, true.

If a traffic officer asks me for my drivers licence, radios back to base, someone will have my driving record up on the screen. But they will not (I hope) have intelligence my political views, my health record, my travel history...

This is the point about keeping these various IDs for specific purposes separate. The government has no right to know information about my health, my political views, etc., since I am not breaking the law.

Re:i was thinking about them today...

[TuataraShoes]

I am not a supporter of the BNP. I disagree with their policies. However, if you label them 'racist', you are not in anyway countering their argument.

They claim they are not 'racist', so perhaps that makes you a 'liar'. I don't really mean that, it's just a point about using labels to dismiss other people's arguments.

The BNP says people from other countries should go and sort out their own countries. This is different from the current government who wants to bring doctors and nurses from 3rd world countries which obviously impoverishes those countries by taking their best talent and the fruits of their investment in their own people. So there is some merit in some BNP policy.

However, personally, I disagree with BNP policy. Yet I think it is possible for someone to see merit in the BNP political argument without being racist.

So if people who think that this political solution is good cannot teach, then what next? Perhaps people who believe the Bible should not be allowed to teach (the Bible speaks against homosexuality).

Just remember, if you happen to agree with every moral standard that is currently in fashion, then you probably would have done the same if you lived in a different era - and you may not be thinking for yourself.

Re:i was thinking about them today...

[Anonymous Coward]

The BNP's official line may be that they care about nationality not race, but a lot of the individual members are pure racists. I moved to the UK from Belgium, and during the last local elections the BNP candidate came to my house campaigning. I explained that I wouldn't be voting for him as his policies would lead to me being thrown out of the country, and his exact response was "you're alright, it's just the non-whites we're after".

(In case you are wondering how I could vote, for local elections all EU citizens can vote in the area where they are resident. It's just national elections that are different.)

Re:i was thinking about them today...

[mikerich]

What you guys seem to miss is that if the British government were replaced by a facist regime at some point in the future, not having an ID card won't help you. In that particular future, they'd still lock you up for speaking against the government, ID card or not. And they'd probably tattoo you with a bar code at the same time.

But an ID card system allows them to find you oh so much quicker than one without.

I can't recommend IBM and the Holocaust (Edwin Black, ISBN: 0316857718) highly enough for anyone even vaguely interested in the social effects of advanced technology. The book covers IBM's relationship with the Nazis through their German subsidiary.

During the 1930s many European countries were automating data for censuses and social provision. Almost all of these systems were based on IBM punchcard technology manufactured in Germany.

The Nazis loved censuses and openly included racial profiling on their punch cards. Other countries wanted to know about race, religion and occupation for benign purposes such as providing social services. The Dutch were at the forefront of this, wanting to make sure that everyone was given equal access to social services. So they innocently asked about individuals race - so as to ensure there was no discrimination.

When the Nazis rolled in to the Netherlands they grabbed all the census records and the punchcard machines. They then just ran the cards looking for Jews - and out popped all their addresses.

In short, 75% of Dutch Jews were murdered by the Nazis thanks to an extensive automated ID system. In France, which had similar levels of Jewish integration into the population, but no automation, 'only' 25% were killed.

That our politicians are prepared to go ahead with such a system despite this clear warning from history is terrifying. I'd say Blunkett was blind - but that might be in poor taste.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:i was thinking about them today...

[mikerich]

I think the ID cards and the national database are going to happen anyway, so I hope you are right. But history of political leadership tells me that sooner or later, I will be right.

And don't just worry about the authorities - how about the people manning the system? Only this week an employee of the DVLA was found guilty of passing on addresses of people to animal rights activitists/terrorists.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:i was thinking about them today...

[mikerich]

So, in what ways are motorways and rocket technology being safeguarded against misuse by a future facist government?

Since you're obsessed with motorways, lets lay the autobahn myth to rest. Pre WW2 Germany had one of the lowest rates of car ownership in Europe, Volkswagen did not deliver a single car to the people before the outbreak of war and almost all freight continued to be moved by rail. The autobahn were designed from the start to move troops and tanks. The propaganda angle was that Germany was moving into the motor age. It didn't.

Access to rockets is (somewhat) controlled by a series of international agreements as are devices such as nuclear weapons, chemicals and biological agents. So they can be enforced through international law.

And try as I might I fail to see how a motorway can be used to persecute a particular member of society. An ID card can.

Interesting that you have faith in a constitution. Why would you choose this particular government to be qualified to lay down principles that all future governments must follow? The mess that is the mass ownership of guns in America is down to the fact that the constitution was written at a time when gun ownership seemed like a good thing. Times change.

A constitution does not usually lay down law - rather it confines actual laws saying what is and what is not permissible. And no, a constitution is not for all time - they have things called amendments (which is what you are citing when referring to Amendment 2 to the American Constitution). Constitutions can be changed - BUT - and here is the important bit - they have a principle called entrenchment - they cannot be overturned by a simple piece of legislation. The US Constitution can be amended at any time provided that there is majority support - not only in Congress but in at least two thirds of the states. Constitutions can be changed, but only when required. Provided you write a good constituion (which the founding fathers did) you have a good way of ruling.

And whilst I disagree with the tenate of the 2nd Amendment, I think it is a little presumptuous of us to say it should be changed when there is clearly little popular support for such a move. When (and I hope it is a when and not an if) the majority of Americans want to revoke the 2nd Amendment they have a procedure to do so.

Compare it to the UK if a government were to ban a fundamental right (an abstract term in British constitutional law) it could do so with a simple Act of Parliament (it'll be even easier if Blunkett gets his emergency powers bill through the Commons). And that's it - no judge can overturn it, no one can declare the law wrong, the European Court on Human Rights could scream but not overturn it, and provided it didn't breach the EC Treaty 1957, there is nothing the European Court of Justice can do either.

I find it hard to believe that there is an argument for not having a constitution.

So are you against increasing the number of policemen? On the one hand, they are useful in combatting crime. On the oitherhand there's the possibility of them being misused as a political army against the people, as happened at Orgreave.

There is nothing about increasing the number of police in my argument. If on the otherhand police were given new powers then my argument stands. We are policed by consent only - not by the imposition of powers.

Do you for instance support stop and search? Which has time and time again been used in a discriminatory way against young blacks and now young Asians? before you give anyone any power you should be certain that they will use it in a responsible manner and be held to account if they do not. The British government and the police are largely unaccountable to the population.

And the ID card wasn't invented by the nazis. You can't seperate them on that flimsy basis. They were all used by the nazis to further their aims. As were airplanes and ships. Perhaps those should be banned too.

Re:i was thinking about them today...

[Jeff Kelly]

"Pre WW2 Germany had one of the lowest rates of car ownership in Europe, Volkswagen did not deliver a single car to the people before the outbreak of war and almost all freight continued to be moved by rail. The autobahn were designed from the start to move troops and tanks. The propaganda angle was that Germany was moving into the motor age."

That's just plain wrong. The very first Autobahn (as they are called in germany) was the AVUS in Berlin, which had been finished in 1921. The second one was built in Italy and was finished in 1923. Plans to build several more motorways in germany had been considered by the german government in the weimar republic but had to be postponed because the project couldn't be funded due to the high reparations payments to france and the economic downturn at the end of the 1920's.

What you most probably mean is the "Reichsautbahnen", which were built during the third reich. BUt all they did was to take the old plans from the weimar republic and make them real. The major difference between these and the original plans was that the nazis extended them to include more motorways than originally planned (By the start of the war 3.300 Kilometers had been completed. Preparations began in 1933 so it tokk them five years to build all that) and also to impose some kind of standard on the construction of them. But those motorways would to some extend have been built even if there had not been a nazi germany.

Jeff

It's alwa

Re:i was thinking about them today...

[cakefool]

I have lived in Bradford for 4 fears, which has a large asian population, with some large areas of white only and some asian only. When I once got lost in the asian only area I was chased - by a ricerboy civic, and only got away because I'm not stupid enough to lower my car and thus can handle speedbumps at 50mph.

Anyway - The BNP campaign came round to our house for the local elections and started trying to get my vote. I stood, arms folded and listened to this shaven headed, pierced chap waffling about my rights as the indigenous(sp?) population. He wafled so long that he was still there when the landlord turned up(Asian) for the(late) rent. The BNP chap spat at him and kicked his car as he stormed off. I have met 5-7 BNP members, and they were all incredibly racist, as were the 20 or so BNP voters I knew.

In short, I have seen both halves of this racism, and The BNP is a joke - any rational person knows what they are about.

This doesn't seem like a new conclusion

[MagicDude]

There was an old british show called Yes Minister. It was on the air from 79-81, and it was about a newly apointed minister in the british government (like a cabinet secretary in the US), and satired how politics ran, with pandering and incompetitant politicians and the civil service who really ran the show, but had to make the politicians feel like they were in charge and so on. It's quite funny. Anyways, back in 1980, they were discussing the creation of this national database and they had already run though how it was going to be a disaster and nobody would like it and such. It's interesting how when they could see the problems that would arise from this system 24 years ago and spoof it on TV, that it would take to long for the government to catch up to the BBC.

Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion

[aaza]

Reminds me of a conversation between Sir Humphrey and Sir Desmond (both of "Yes, Minister")

Sir Desmond Glazebrook : Surely once a Minister has made his decision, that's it, isn't it?
Sir Humphrey Appleby : What on earth gave you that idea?
Sir Desmond Glazebrook : Surely a decision is a decision.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Only if it is the decision you want. If not it is just a temporary setback.

I want to know if this decision is a decision, or a temporary setback.

quote found on imdb's "Yes, Minister" quotes section

Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite. Whilst Americans might believe that any government owned organisation does nothing but back up the government, those of us elsewhere no otherwise. The BBC, and Australia's ABC, whilst being government owned, have a hell of a lot of control over their own affairs. Here in Austrlia, the ABC, along with SBS (our multi-cultural channel), of our media organisations, are by far the most likely to be unbiased in their coverage of events. Hell, there's a lot of content on both that's incredibly critical of our government - content that none of the commercial channels would even consider showing.

Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion

[DJCF]

Agreed. Want an example of that? The War between the BBC and our Government over Iraq. It claimed the life of David Kelly and the jobs of a whole legion of BBC managers from the reporter who broke the story up to the BBC's managing directors.

I think the BBC is pretty independant.

Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's an arm or subsidiary of the government, at least.

It is neither of those things. Must we have the same silly conversation every time the BBC is mentioned on Slashdot? If you can't grasp the concept of a Crown Corporation and the mandate which enables the BBC and the TV Licencing Authority then please just be quiet in future.

Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion

[iBod]

It seems to me that the BBC is one of the few parts of the British media that is challenging the govenment at all.

Saw an excellent BBC documentary last night called "The Power of nightmares" which shows how the right has manufactured 'imaginary enemies' and exagerated threats (we all know which ones) so that they can tighen their grip on power.

Hardly toeing the government line is it?

Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion

[meringuoid]

Saw an excellent BBC documentary last night called "The Power of nightmares" which shows how the right has manufactured 'imaginary enemies' and exagerated threats

Did you see last week's episode? They've been doing it for a long time. Apparently the neocon cabal had a go at this sort of thing in the seventies. First off, they decided that the CIA wasn't doing its job properly. So they had their own people go over the data as well. What did they come up with? A whole lot of Soviet superweapons that were so tremendously secret that there was no evidence for their existence at all! That was the frightening part - the neocons KNEW the Soviets had all kinds of secret weapons, so the fact that they could hide them so well, and put on this totally convincing act of being behind in the arms race, was a shock.

First lesson learned: bullshitting about nonexistent weapons can help your political goals.

Later, one of their political sympathisers came to be head of the CIA. At the time, the big story, popularised in some alarming book or other, was that the Soviets were behind every terrorist organisation worldwide. ALL of them. A report was demanded from the CIA, which had to prove that this was indeed true. The intelligence analysts were amazed. 'But it isn't true,' they replied. 'But look at all the evidence,' said the neocons. Most of this evidence turned out to actually be the CIA's own propaganda... but hey, you do as the boss says. Report produced, Soviets denounced as Evil Empire.

Second lesson learned: the intelligence services can always be bullied into producing a report that matches your propaganda needs.

Who's this 'they' I'm referring to, btw? Just a generic 'neocons' or 'the right'? No. The same few names throughout. Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle... all Bush's minders. The same damn cabal all the time. It's enough to make you start wondering if maybe there isn't something to all this conspiracy crap about Illuminati...

And yes, it's plain enough that the BBC doesn't toe the government line. They're never going to admit defeat over Hutton. Have you seen the recent storylines on Spooks?

Advice to future PMs: don't fuck with the BBC...

Moral: Liberty

[BrianGa]

It just goes to show that there are a lot of nice sounding reasons for us to give up some freedom and have it nickled and dimed to death, but there is one main reason to keep freedom and that is freedom. Unlike these other things, liberty is an end in itself - it derives from the fact that people are creatures of choice and not like the animals. There is no such thing as too much liberty ... it would be like saying that science is too rational.

Re:Moral: Liberty

[vijayiyer]

Alas, this is a dying concept. Ask your average person on the street about a national ID card, and they use the "if you've got nothing to hide..." justification. Nowadays, people like to err on the side of perceived safety rather than liberty, and I fear the days of true liberty are numbered (or perhaps already gone). The unfortunate fact is that the pioneers of personal freedom would nowadays be branded as extremist [right/left] wing ideologues.

Re:Moral: Liberty

[Goosey]

A favorite quote of mine:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

I agree with this dead dude, btw

Differs from a drvier's license, how?

[Anonymous Coward]

I already have an ID that I carry everywhere. It is called a driver's license.

I don't see how an National ID card changes anything. Especially for a country like the UK where the driver's licenses are issued by the national government.

So one want to explain (in relation to driver's licenses):
1) How this costs me any freedom I haven't already given up?
2) How this is supposed to stop terrorism?

OK, if you want to solve other problems like (a) long haul truck drivers having multiple IDs to avoid insurance/ticket issues, or (b) the fact that we are running out of Social Security numbers and will have to assign babies the numbers of dead people, I am OK with solving things like that.

And, if it is just one more card I have to carry in my already crowded wallet (thank you gorcery store loyalty cards) ... well, then F' that.

But I fail to see how this is the end of the world or the world's saviour.

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

[mogglestein]

Because if you dont drive, you dont need a drivers licence. I walk around every day and don't carry any document that can legally prove my ID. Those rare days that I need to legally prove who I am (opening a new bank account for example, something I've only done twice in my life, or flying to some place, usually about twice a year) I take my passport. The police have (as far as I know) no legal right to stop me and demand that I prove who I am. Even with drivers licences I believe that if you get stopped without yours whilst driving you have 5 days to turn up at the police station with your licence in hand. Most people I think want ID for conveniance, since they percieve more and more places are requiring legal ID (how many bank accounts do you open a week?), security and fraud protection are rather woolly issues most people seem to see as more of a nother argument for rather than a personal pressing issue, where is conveniance is more personal issue. If this makes sense.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a yank this will probally blow your mind but...

A *hugh* proportion of people in England DO NOT DRIVE.

The reasons for this are pretty understandable.

Petrol in England is really expensive, at around four times what it is in America. There is a reason why Europeans do not drive SUV and prefer same economy numbers like a Golf etc.

Traffic congestion is a major problem, with london being in almost constant gridlock and there being almost nowhere to park anyway.

There just isn't the association with, driving == freedom, or driving == coming of age, that Americans seem to have. Partly because of the above reasons but also because it is a completly different culture in England with sad wankers like trainspotters taking the place of rice boyz etc. Even though the public transport system is a nightmare (although I have never used public transport in America).

And Distances are not that great anyway. You could probally travel from the northest point of England to the south in a couple of days depending on whether you count Scotland or not.

Saying that a ID card is not needed in England because everyone drives and hense has a drivers license is like saying that they should have built Windsor castle closer to the airport. Not everywhere is some cultural bastardisation of American, Yet. /me sniffs and turns up his nose

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?

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

[Alioth]

It differs from a driving license because:

1. In the UK, even when driving, you don't have to carry your license. It would be an offence not to carry your ID card if compulsory - this means everyday forgetfulness can easily be a criminal offence.
2. You don't have to drive. Many people in the UK don't, and therefore don't have a driving license or passport. At the moment, the only people who this really impacts are those who look like they might be under 18 going to buy alcohol. However, even if you didn't drive, the ID card would be compulsory and it would be mandatory to carry it with you.
3. Inconvenience. Cycling and running clothing often has no pockets.
4. Cost. A drivers license is optional (especially where there is reasonable public transport). The costs for this all singing all dancing biometric ID will be quite high. Guess who has to pay - YOU do. For something that is essentially pointless.

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

[Oddly_Drac]

"The police have (as far as I know) no legal right to stop me and demand that I prove who I am."

They do, depending on the circumstances.

"Even with drivers licences I believe that if you get stopped without yours whilst driving you have 5 days to turn up at the police station with your licence in hand."

A 'producer' is a slip of paper that has boxes ticked to indicate what documents you have to take to a police station within 7 days of being given it. I've gotten away with 10 days and a telling off.

"Most people I think want ID for conveniance, since they percieve more and more places are requiring legal ID"

No, generally they want proof of address; this then links to the Experian credit database and the electoral register (which Experian have full access to, but most other companies do not...a recent change to mean 'opting out' of the sold copy of the electoral register is now possible). Proof of address is as simple as a utility bill. You'd be surprised how many times a Passport is refused as ID.

As for 'ID as convenience', this is a fairly daft idea that completely ignores the problem of government misuse of databases, or even the idea that the government _can_ maintain a very large database after the style of Envision, the TV License people. Who, incidentally, evade the Data Protection Act.

"security and fraud protection"

Of course, the chip and pin proponents completely fail to realise that it shifts liability from the merchant to the consumer, so instead of the supposedly superior method of having someone check the signature on the back of the card with the actual signature (which is still the accepted method for cheques worldwide), they've gone for 9^4 combination with a private key that relies on nobody shoulder-surfing in a store.

Likewise, the Biometric card identifies the person holding it. To suggest that the technologies used in such a card wouldn't be duplicatable within a couple of months of rollout is to ignore the fact that our 'new' passport design was faked within 2 weeks of unveiling, and you can _still_ obtain a chain of documentary evidence for a false persona given the desire, money and tools.

This is essentially the backdoor to the desired gene/fingerprint database that gives Blunkett the giggles and it's this that has earned him Big Brother awards galore. The man has _introduced_ 270 offences over the term of the present government, and is one of the reasons I'm questioning my socialism.

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

[SenseiLeNoir]

Even more intresting, my UK Driving License doesnt even have a photo!

When I passed back in 1994, there were NO photos on the Driving License, and the actual license is a peice of A4 size (Almost letter, for the Americans here) paper that is folded into four.

Imagine the look on the faces of American Car Hire companies when i show that when they request to see my license when I drive in the US!

Althoguh now we do have a photo License card, in-line with most otehr countries, you are not required to carry it with you whilst driving anyway. And for just routine check stops its rarely asked, i know because a few years back, I used to get stopped frequently because they thought I looked "too young" to be driving a Mercedes. But all they did was give some slight questions whilst they checked the databse, then let me go without even checking my ID.

PS, yes it was a pain that they kept stopping me, but then again, if some young joyrider nicked my car, at least I knwo the police do actually act on suspitions, and they were pretty friendly and apologetic when they stopped me.

Re:Bringing this back to the America's topic

[xlv]

National ID is anathema to Republicans, but would Kerry consider the idea if elected? He is popular abroad, where such IDs are common place...

While I'm sure you enjoyed bashing Kerry, the fundamental difference between the US and Western Europe is that in most countries over there, the individual still has control over his/her data, meaning a company cannot resell the data without the individual's consent so having some form of national ID is not such a problem over there as it doesn't open the door to big corporations tracking your every move...

Election next year - possibly

[eamacnaghten]

There is a strong possibility there will be a general election in the UK next year.

Not that this has anything to do with delaying implementations of unpopular laws though....

Re:Who am I?

[nels_tomlinson]

Most people already carry multiple forms of ID anyway. A standard would make it easier.

With a single form of ID, there is a single point of failure. When the One True Database has bad data about you, you will be screwed. If the One True Database says that you are a sex offender, then you are.

Furthermore, since the One True Database is always right, by definition, you will find it harder than ever to fix those mistakes.

Government inefficiency is the most immediate bulwark of our freedoms in the U.S. We don't want to risk eliminating it.

Here's a useful litmus test: if something would make life harder for would-be terrorists, it's going to take away freedoms we can't afford to loose, and the government wins. That's worse than letting the terrorists win, since the government has the ability and moral authority to kill far more of us than the terrorists could ever dream of hurting.

Feh.

[Pig Hogger]

In France, it is compulsory to carry ID at all time; yet, France is seen as a beacon of Liberty and Freedom throughout the world, and if you tell a frenchman that his liberty is severely curtailed by that, he'll scratch his head and maybe ask for some explanation... France has 60 million of population; surely the problem can be scaled efficiently to handle 5 times as much people?

Anglo-saxon countries have those terrible hangups about State-issued ID (amongst other things), mostly for neurotic reasons that can be traced back to the magna-carta. Yet, such IDs can solve a lot of problems that are currently awkwardly and unevenly addressed; like drivers license, for example.

It's not everyone who can have one; blind people, those with motor disabilities or simply heavy cases of dyslexia (it's no good to mix the gas and brake pedals) will make sure that plenty of people will be oddballed by not having what is regarded as an ID-card.

The hodge-podge of US motor-vehicle registration systems (one in each State) make it so many different ways of doing ONE thing.

Banks clerks simply underflow their stacks when confronted by someone who doesn't have a driver's licence; they're simply not programmed for that.

And what about the misuse and abuse of social-security numbers? Video-clubs will ask for it to rent a goddammed DVD!!! It is not likely that a video-club will keep it's database as securely as a bank does.

Too Much Data on One Card?

[Apple Acolyte]

The article description claims this idea was sold to the English through the promise that it would replace other forms of identification. Speaking as one of those "evil" Americans, I must say that I would not want the US to create a national ID that would incorporate/obviate other forms of identification. It's already bad enough that so many places (like schools) use the US social security card number as a form of public identification, which is something the social security administration specifically warned against. That situation is improving, however. But if one's social security card, passport and driver's license were combined into one, the negatives would far outweigh the positives.

If the US were to adopt a universal ID like the one advocated for England, I could only predict a security nightmare. Rest assured that calls for a US national ID will be on the lips of so many politicians if (when) there is another terrorist attack. Yet, far from improving the situation, a national ID would make the US less secure. For one, a national ID would greatly simplify the counterfeiting process. And for another, thieves would reap infinitely greater illicit rewards for stealing wallets. I'm glad the English are rejecting their proposal. (Really scare derivative thought: a global ID! EEK!)

ID cards have *NOT* been scrapped!

[Anonymous Coward]

Plans for ID cards have *not* been scrapped in the UK.

From the article....

Plans to combine new compulsory identity cards with passports and driving licences have been dropped by Home Secretary David Blunkett.

and then it goes on to say that .....

The legislation to allow ID cards is widely expected to be promised in next month's Queen's Speech.

So, all they have done is backed down on plans to combine ID cards with other forms of ID.

We will still have to get ID cards, and *pay* for the prililage!.....

But the Home Office said the prices remained unchanged: people would pay either £35 for a stand-alone ID card or £77 for a passport and ID card together.

WTF! I have to get this by law, *and* i have to pay for it. So it's a TAX then?!

ID cards are unnecessary. They are just jumping on the 'Total control prevents Terrorism' bandwagon, and we all know that's a load of BS.

This is why no one in the UK trusts labour anymore. The sooner GW's lap dog is kicked out of office the better.

Re:ID cards have *NOT* been scrapped!

[mikerich]

More to the point, how do other political parties feel about this?

LibDems and the nationalist parties wholly against (there has even been talk of the Scottish Parliament refusing to play ball with the scheme).

The Conservatives haven't made up their minds, indeed the Shadow Home Secretary (and I thought Blunkett wouldn't cast a shadow) has been pro-ID and against them in the same speech.

UKIP - probably for them as they'll then be able to identify foreigners.

Best wishes,
Mike.

National ID cards are a distraction!!!

[logicnazi]

I keep hearing concern over things like a national ID card or other mandatory identification system. However, these sorts of worries just distract us from the real privacy concerns.

Pragmatically we already have national ID cards. Between drivers liscensces, passports and social security cards we have all the disadvantages of a national ID card. I can barely get through a day, much less a lifetime without these IDs.

The fact that I *could* theoretically get along without these cards doesn't mean anything. If I created a national DNA database (full DNA which could be tested for diseases) it wouldn't be okay if I allowed people to pay $100 to opt out.

Continuing to crow about things like national ID cards distracts from real issues of privacy. Defating national ID schemes gives us empty victories that make us think we are maintaining our privacy.

--

Personally I think maintaining privacy, at least in the traditional sense, isn't a viable option. Even if we win every legislative victory it is too easy to give corporations access to our personal data for a minor convenience. The fact that a few privacy minded individuals might avoid this net makes no difference in the big picture. Any societal harms will still occur even if 1% of society is not in any database.

Privacy, despite the name, is not a personal issue. The harms are not individual, accuring to you because your information is in a database but rather societal resulting from the fact that a large enough percentage of people are in databases.

Instead of fighting minor skirmishes against ID cards while our privacy is eroded behind our back we should try and minimize the negative social effects of privacy. The primary danger that erosion of privacy provides is that effective privacy will be availible only to the rich. This is already happening....cameras aren't put in well to do suburbs.

I contend this is the primary danger from losing privacy. Everyone does socially unacceptable things behind closed doors, be it smoking joints or having kinky sex. If we don't make sure privacy is lost by the well-off at the same rate it is lost by the poor we risk exagerating the problems we have in the war on drugs. Namely, where the poor and minorities are targeted, either legally or just by insurance companies and public opinion, for their 'inappropriate behavior' while the rich get a free pass.

Why?

[themoodykid]

Can someone explain why there is a push for ID cards of this sort?

Sure, we do have driver's licenses and passports, but are people wanting to combine them just in the name of efficiency or what?

On the other hand, what's so bad about having a card like this?

Re:Why?

[mcpheat]

Can someone explain why there is a push for ID cards of this sort?

The explanation is that David Blunkett is a facist control freak in a department of facist control freaks.

The justification given for these cards has varied over the last 5 years with the current bogey man e.g. asylum seekers(codeword for illegal imigrant), benefit fraud(at one point they were trying to pass them off as "entitlement cards"), terrorism, identity theft etc. but they have not produced a coherent explanation as to how any of these problems would be solved by their cards.

Re:Why?

[UpnAtom]

Can someone explain why there is a push for ID cards of this sort?

Blunkett wants a solution for his immigration problem and the police are in favour.

Currently, illegal immigrants are impossible to track whilst their claim takes months to be processed.

Naturally, the police are a little bit more focussed on stopping criminals than protecting civil liberties.

On the other hand, what's so bad about having a card like this?

I'm much more concerned about the impending database state. So much data is collected on us already and the only thing stopping it and all future data (eg DNA & CCTV tracking) being indexed by anyone with a grudge or genocidal tendencies is our flimsy democracy and the lack of a unique identity number.

Re:Privacy: West versus East

[Arzach]

Yep, no national ID Cards here in the good Ol' US-of-A. **** Item: Social Security Card # **** Item: Drivers License # **** Item: U.S. Passport # Just try applying for ANYTHING (college courses, credit card, library card, Blockbuster video card) these days w/o one of the above. Want a driver's license? Better be prepared to fork over your SS#. You want a passport? Besides having a U.S. Birth Cert, you need to have some other form of I.D. Such as a drivers license. Um, which requires (okay, at least in CA) you to provide your SS#.

I'm a DBA for a large government

[Anonymous Coward]

Some think governments can't manage big database projects

I take offense to this. Why, just the other day I managed the following:

SELECT * FROM the_people WHERE sex = 'female' AND marital_status = 'divorced' AND divorce_date >= date_sub(now(), interval 2 month) AND age >= 16 AND age Just doing my duty as a civil servant by catching them on the rebound.

3rd normal form? whats that?

The database is the problem, not the card!

[Timo_UK]

All the biometric data will be stored centrally, so the cops don't even need your card to find out who you are, the simply take a fingerprint. This is COMPLETELY different from German, French etc, cards and goes way beyond them. Why the media don't point that out is beyond me...

This is the 8th try...

[TyrranzzX]

I believe it's the 8th time they've tried to convince the UK people of this by announcing a program if my count is right, in the past 2 years. Apparently, all 33 million of them are giving the government the good ol' n' sturdy one fingered salute. They'll do mass protests and burn their ID cards they will. Now enough of them seem pissed off that the people in government are beginning to get the message that continuously forcing this kind of thing on them is wrong and won't work, time to change strategies. Kinda reminds me of the IP law for software that was forced, and forced, and forced for about 2 years and eventally signed in a very weak state.

Re:This is the 8th try...

[jd]

Actually, it's about 60 million, and it has been tried almost yearly since the 1950s. After the Poll Tax fiasco, though, the British are more confident about defeating unpopular Government measures through mass protest. Also, the British tend to regard national ID as an open invitation to dictatorship. (It gives one central authority far too much information about far too many people.)

Mind you, the British have changed their minds in the past. The reason Nynex laid all the cables in Britain is that British Telecom were banned from doing so in the 1940s. The reason for the ban was that cable networks were seen as dangerous, as in the event of a dictatorial Government, the media would be controllable from a central point. (It was also argued that if people didn't have radio receivers, it would be harder for resistance groups to communicate unobtrusively by radio.)

Today, of course, we wouldn't dream of having an unelected foreign Government dictate British policy, control British troops, invade British businesses, ... Oh.

A good idea

[mrshowtime]

A great way to get people to use this new id card would be to make it so that you could not be able to buy or sell without the id card, or a tattoo of the id card/w chip implanted.

Why are ID cards a bad thing?

[Moderation abuser]

The "If you've nothing to hide" and all that argument. Well, ask the Jews in Germany with the J stamp on their ID cards, or the Rwandans who were massacred because their ethnicity was mentioned on their card whether they thought they had anything to hide.

You may well think you have nothing to hide today, but tomorrow ID cards are the perfect discrimination tool, that is after all the whole purpose for an ID card.

Why ID cards are useless, or at least, the arguments given for them so far are bogus:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ican/A2561834

UK campaign against ID cards:
http://www.no2id.net/

Re:Who am I?

[mdecarle]

Oh-oh. Here comes Belgium again.

1. We have a national-ID card. This contains the State Register Number, name and address and marital state (reissued every few years - soon an e-ID !).

2. Then there's the driver's license, has your name but not address (never reissued, except when it changes).

3. But we also have a SIS card (Social Identity System), that contains information on deseases you have and medicins you normally take (this aids if you're at the pharmacy, and you want prescription drugs without prescription - if you normally take them). Already electronic, does not get reissued (data changes). This card helps when you get to a hospital (like after an accident) and the doctors check your card, see your health-status, and can treat you properly.

So, Big Brother lives in Belgium, I assume?

You'll still be carrying multiple IDs

[Moderation abuser]

You think that because you are issued an ID card that you won't also have to carry your driving license, your credit cards, your library card, your Rotary Club card?

No, it's an *additional* ID that you will have to carry.

Not only that. To be remotely effective it is an ID which it must be compulsory to carry, that means fines and jail time if you don't. The UK ID scheme requires that an individual register with the state *and tell it where you live*. You move house and forget to tell the government, you get fined. You don't tell them you also live at your girlfriends? That's an offense.

Misleading title of article.

[flokemon]

Blunkett is not backing down on the idea of an ID card. There just won't be combined cards (ie passport + driving license + ID card) but a standalone ID card instead.
And it will still cost £35 and contain I don't know how much biometric data.

ID cards are great, because...

[j.leidner]

...they contain the same information as your passport, except for the vista stamps, just in a compact form that makes it easier to always carry it in your wallet. No need to remeber it anymore when you drive to the airport.

And if you're having a small car accident somewhere and both parties don't want to bother calling the police you can quickly exchage your (authenticated!) name.

In effect, the ID card is a downsized version of the ID card that is already part of EU passports (the plastic, machine-readable part). And there's no secret information stored on it either, because you can tell how the information is encoded in the two machine-readable lines of text:

• The lead string "ID" to calibrate the card readers.
• Surname
• First mame
• Number of the ID card
• Country issued
• Date issued
• Expiration date
• Checksum

Say Cowboy Neal was born in Britain on 1 January 1977 and had an ID card that expired on the UNIX epoch (just making this up), then his entry could read (assuming the British card follows the European model):

IDGB<NEAL<<<<<COWBOY<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
7101245447G B<<770101X<380119Y<<<<<<<Z

(X, Y, Z being check digits I can't be bothered to compute right this morning, and the spurious blank is inserted by ./ somehow...)

So it's very simple and transparent, no Orwellian tech built in. That's why I love my (German) ID card and always carry it (even in Britain) to give evident that I'm me (and not Elvis), fly around without having to remember did I forget my passport, and yet nobody can easily abuse the system.
A biometric passport, on the other hand, would be a completely different matter...

--
Try Nuggets , the first UK SMS search engine. Answer your questions via simple text messages, all across the UK.

Freedom with no boundaries is no freedom at all

[October_30th]

but there is one main reason to keep freedom and that is freedom.

So, ID cards take away the freedom? That's news to me. I've got a unique social security number on an ID card. It's required when I use public services such as health care, when I vote, to show that I am permitted to drive a car or that I am the owner of the bank/credit card when I'm making a significant purchase. And you know what? I like it. I like to know that requiring positive identification reduces health care fraud, that it's hard for someone to vote in my place or that it's risky for a thief to use my bank/credit card. No, an ID card is not the perfect solution, but it will do a lot of good.

This talk about people losing their freedoms if ID cards are issued is just a lot of hot air and a non-issue. It's an extremist, all-or-nothing attitude that's bordering on religious fervor and hysteria. Such ideals are hardly ever practical or even beneficial in real life.

There is no such thing as too much liberty ... it would be like saying that science is too rational.

Well, as a scientist I don't think a purely rational approach to problems would work as well as the present intuitive/rational-combination.

Saying that there can not be too much liberty is nonsense. Freedom is essentially defined by the few boundaries we set to it. No boundaries, no freedom.

The ID card system would have to be huge

[Moderation abuser]

Seriously *HUGE*. Banks, Post Offices, Hospitals, Doctors, DWP offices, Police Offices would all need access and specialised biometric kit to demonstrate that the cards are valid.

An ID card system would be far far larger and more complex than the NHS IT system. The estimated 3 billion cost is a joke. A white elephant doesn't begin to describe it, a white Mammoth might.

Re:The ID card system would have to be huge

[rpjs]

And interestingly, the Home Office haven't even begun to cost for all the biometric readers in all those places that will be necessary for the Blunkettcard to work. I suspect that if they do, the Treasury will squash the whole thing dead in an instant. They'll probably try to hold off revealing the full cost until enough money has been spent already that it would be more economic to carry on.

Re:Who am I?

[tigress]

And what makes you think that you can't get screwed over even if there is no "One True Database". In the UK, people are still being mistaken for criminals, in the states, even Senators are being stopped as terrorist suspects.

Here in Sweden, there's been a standard for ID-cards for several years. Any SIS-approved ID-card (such as, for instance, my drivers license, bank ID or postal ID) is valid for identification.

I have yet to see any lack of civil liberties resulting from this. On the contrary, our ID-cards, along with our personal numbers (think social security numbers, except better) make it easier to make sure who's who. And that's the point if it all, anyway. To let you tell others that you're the one that your ID-card says you are.

As for databases, well, there'll never be a "one true database" anyway. Different organizations will always have their own databases. A standardized ID will let them make sure who's who though, so that you won't get confused with that terrorist guy on the floor above, who just happens to share your last name.

The real reason...

[skinfitz]

Is it the beginning of the end of a bad idea, or just more spin to dodge the remaining concerns?

No silly - there is an election coming up.

No he's not!

[Builder]

He's not backing down on ID cards - in reality, we're moving away from voluntary and towards compulsory!

He's backing down on the idea of a combined card to serve as a drivers licence, ID card, etc. Instead, we will have to carry separate cards for each of these functions.

And the clever thing is the way that he is forcing them on us. When you renew your passport you will be forced to get an ID card as well. And you will have to pay GBP35 for the privilege! If you don't want an ID card, the only way to avoid it is to not get a passport - this is a problem for many of us who have to travel on business.

Amen to that

[tgma]

I live in Russia, but have spent most of my adult life in the UK. When I go back to the UK, it is such a weight off my shoulders knowing that as I leave the house, I do not have to worry about whether I have all my documents with me. At the moment, this includes: passport, visa, immigration card and work permit. In theory, I am in breach of the law, because my registration stamp is in my passport, and not on my immigration card. Of course, if the stamp were on my immigration card, there would be questions about why it is not in my passport.

Of course, foreigners have to register in the UK as well. But it's a lot easier to get the requisite stamps, and there is no requirement to present these documents to any policeman on demand. Whereas in Russia, policemen gather outside bars frequented by foreigners, in order to check their documents and extract a little late-night "foreigner tax". It's all about implementation - without safeguards, the system will certainly be abused. But better not to have the system in the first place.

For what it's worth, Putin has endorsed Bush

[tgma]

And he is probably number one in the world in terms of rolling back civil liberties. Note that I say rolling back - there are a lot of places worse than Russia, but they have been that way from a long time. Russia is actively moving back towards totalitarianism.

Re:I'm blindist!

[niittyniemi]

> This sounds terrible - but I've always thought that a guy who
> couldn't see wouldn't really be able to grasp the full privacy
> implications of any aspects of government policy.

My problem with a blindman being in charge of a large government
department is that he can't possibly assess all the data necessary to
come to a competent decision - he quite literally can't see what is
going on around him!

I am yet to see any sort of article in any sort of media about whether
Blunkett is fit to be a government minister. Something that needs
serious discussion....without accusations of prejudice being bandied about.

The national ID scheme will be a waste of money and bypassed by
villains. Even by Blunkett's best estimates only 99 out of 100 people
will likely have an ID card. If you are a terrorist you are not
going to get one and if you do it will be somebody elses. That defeats
any purpose the ID scheme may have.

I recommend Dr Ross Anderson's written submission to the Home Affairs commitee as further reading.

Choice quote:

There are good reasons why the typical citizen currently has a number
of cards, keys and other access tokens. Cramming more function into a
token makes it more liable to failure, more complex to maintain, a
more attractive target for forgers, and a greater threat to privacy.

But I already carry my eyes and fingerprints

[Andy_R]

I've said this several times before in slashdot id card discussions, but I've yet to have a sensible explanation for it.

Why do I need to carry biometric data about my eyes and fingerprints with me, when I'm already taking my actual eyes and fingerprints?

If we are going to be identified by biometric data, how can looking at a forgable, breakable, swappable, stealable card be more reliable than looking at the actual evidence?

Re:But I already carry my eyes and fingerprints

[Mr Syd]

Because the biometric tech is only good enough to validate that you are the same as the person identified on the card.

The technology is not capable of matching your biometric data (eg your retina scan) with a unique individual on the database - your retina would match you + several other people, so the system wouldn't know whether the person standing there was John Smith or Osama Bin Laden, who (from the system's point of view) have identical retinas.

Identity theft

[Moderation abuser]

An ID card is a single piece of identification which makes identity theft simpler, not more difficult.

In terms of civil liberties you are lucky and a little naive, just 60 years ago fairly near where you live, millions of people were being gassed because they could be easily identified as Jewish.

And there will be one true database, the legislation is already in place, there will also be lots of very useful databases which can be trivially indexed onto the primary one using the ID number.

It's not just the govenment.

[clare-ents]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/3 951945.stm

A man who worked for the driving licence authority misused his access to their database to pass details to Animal Rights protestors about people who may be involved with Chris Hall - a breeder of guinea pigs for medical testing.

The details of 13 people were handed out and a variety of offences of criminal damage were conducted against them, including smashed windows and pushing a hosepipe through the front door to fill the house with water.

It's not just the government who'll have access to the database, it's every employee too.

Re:It's not just the govenment.

[jimicus]

It's not just the government who'll have access to the database, it's every employee too.

Well, it is just the government who'll have access to the database. But you have to understand what the government is in the context of "who requires access to this system?"

It's not Tony Blair.

It's not the Labour Party.

It's every single government agency. That's driving licenses, social security, healthcare, local councils, law enforcement and education just off the top of my head.

Does the person who thinks they have nothing to hide expect me to believe that there's not a single corruptible person employed by any of those organisations?

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.

For those of you who don't like ID cards...

[Catullus]

There are a few organisations in the UK whom you may be interested in.

• no2id
• Stand
• Liberty

Also, I should point out the the Liberal Democrat party is the only major UK political party that's against ID cards.

Useful in some cases

[KontinMonet]

I recently returned to the UK from the continent after nearly a decade in France, Holland, Germany and Switzerland.

Mostly in Germany and Switzerland, nothing happens without your ID but it makes life easy getting an apartment, opening bank accounts, getting mobile phone contracts and so on. In the UK, in the absence of an ID card, opening a bank account was a complete pain.

I am British, with a passport and NI number. But these are no good for opening a bank account in the UK (unless you already have a UK bank account...). The rules are that you have to show a recent utility bill (or equivalent) with your name and current address plus other forms of identification. Of course, to get such a utility bill, I had to get an apartment but a lot of landlords want your bank account so that they can be assured of regular and timely payment. A vicious circle which proved frustrating to break.

The banks do offer to write to your foreign bank but the British, being such insular little islanders expect everything to be conducted in English, even if you have only just arrived from a small island off Japan. They will not attempt to communicate even in another major European language. In contrast, European banks often conduct their operations in several major languages.

To survive, I had to use the services of a friend's bank account (gotta be someone you can trust implicitly) until after several months, I was able to get an apartment and then, after having a utility bill, open my own account.

I've spoken to other foreigners (Swedish, Spanish, Bulgarian etc.) who all had to go through the same farcical process. All come from places where ID cards are the norm and wonder why the UK has to make life so difficult.

I note that 'Blind Man' Blunkett (the current and, one fervently hopes only temporary, Home Secretary) is possibly rejecting the notion of an ID card, not because it might make things easier for ordinary citizens but because there might be workarounds for crooks and terrorists. This is typical of the horrendously authoritarian Blunkett, nothing he does is for Joe Soap but only to simplify (to make more 'efficient') police powers and processes. See, for example the US-UK Extradition Treaty 2003

Re:Who am I?

[jimicus]

As for databases, well, there'll never be a "one true database" anyway.

Erm... yes there will. That's pretty much the whole point of an ID card, according to David Blunkett.

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.

Re:A real "nightmare scenario" might be different

[BasilBrush]

Database theory says you are wrong. The more times the same information is stored in the same or different databases the more errors there will be.* For example, when you move house, with multiple computers holding your adress like now, the chances are you will forget to inform some of them, or at least one of the typists will get it wrong. With a single database, a single change is very much harder to forget to do, and the odds of there being a mistake in typing are much reduced, because so are the keystrokes. And of course it is much easier for you to check that one address is correct.

If someone incorrectly marks you as dead, one visit to a government office with your biometric ID card in hand will be quite enough to make clear their error. And once that error has been corrected once, there is no fear that there is some government computer somewhere that has the old wrong data.

*(Not to be confused with backups or error correcting redundancy like RAID).

Another problem

[pdoucy]

is that people who are paid to issue ID cards may be total morons.
In France, we've had IDs for quite a long time and I really don't think they're so intrusive.

But I have this example : I recently renewed my ID so that I could travel to some EU country. I filled in the form, waited for three weeks, and finally had my ID... just to notice (myself) that my name was mispelled (my name is 5 letters long !). So I sent it back saying that that may pose a problem. After three more weeks, I had a new ID. My name was correctly spelled, everything was fine and my trip went pretty good.
Some time ago, for an unknown reason, I read what was actually written in my ID, just to discover that they made another mistake...in my gender.

What this means is that those people who are paid to make those IDs and are not even capable of rereading them, potentially gave me two brand new identities...
I thibnk that's a problem...

Pilot scheme is a failure

[blackest_k]

when the EU was enlarged in May, working rights were granted to citizens of the new member states, however Mr Blunkett felt this was a perfect opportunity to trial his new ID card Scheme.

Each person has to register within a month paying a 50 pound fee sending their passport and a letter from their Employer.

This scheme has had problems mainly relating to the processing of applications, taking too long to return passports, failure to recognise that some workers are students and will work here in the summer only- much as students do all over the world.

however, there is a second process which has to be gone through too which is the issuing of a permanent National Insurance number.

Having provided the necessary evidence to the goverment once, to get the id card issued you would think that issuing a national insurance number should be automatic.
Nationality proven, identity proven, a legitimate job but no it seems the goverment doesn't trust its own ID card scheme and requires a second round of applications and interviews this time with the DWP department of work and pensions. they require passport, letter from employer .. basically the same information and evidence that was required for the workers registration scheme.

As was explained to me by the WRS Manager this scheme Establishes Nationality it doesn't establish Identity.

The scheme is improving however now they will check and return passports on reciept and record the recorded delivery number which is issued by the royal mail so now they will be able to know what they have done with peoples passports.

The issueing of permanent National Insurance Numbers is quite critical for non uk nationals,the employer in this country has the responsibility of ensuring someone he employees is legal and a number of employers are not prepared to take on someone without a permanent NI number, with the existence of a National database of legal non uk nationals being created it and the issue of the ID card it should make it easier for non uk nationals to find work but since the goverment will not recognise it as being proof of ID who will?

As a further example, where the Id card should make a difference is the provision of a general practioner (family Dr), as people employed in this country and paying taxes and national insurance the Id card could be used to establish that this person is entitled to treatment under the NHS.

currently there is complete confusion about how and when somebody is resident and eligible for treatment in the UK and no clear guidelines have been issued to GP's how to proceed.

(correction in one part of the country at least the NHS trust is looking to see if they can use the ID card as one simple proof of entitlement to NHS treatment. )

Now they are aware of its existence it could simplify an administrative nightmare for the NHS.

maybe soon there will be a positive side to the Id card scheme at least in one area. There are many other area's that could also benefit such as library services and provision of education to migrant workers children.
simply by simplifying the red tape.

I know some people might say why should britain provide its goverment provided services to migrant workers, well since these people pay uk taxes and pay UK National Insurance payments contributing to UK society why should they be excluded from the services they contribute to?

I started this post with a negative view of the Id card scheme, but if it can simplify the procedures to gain access to services or conversely be used to deny them to people wishing to abuse uk services then it may have a positive use.

The Id card doesnt in itself give anymore information than you are a legitimate member of uk society with rights given to uk residents.

sure there may well be a lot of data held about an individual all referenceable to the Id card but it doesnt mean that all your records will be available to any agency at random.

certainly the data protection act is in place to prevent abuses of this kind.