UK Home Office Set To Scrap National ID Cards

mjwx writes "In what would seem to be a sudden outbreak of common sense for the UK, the Home Office has put forward a plan to scrap the national ID card system put into place by the previous government. From the BBC: 'The Home Office is to reveal later how it will abolish the national identity card programme for UK citizens. The bill, a Queen's Speech pledge, includes scrapping the National Identity Register and the next generation of biometric passports.' The national ID card system, meant to tackle fraud and illegal immigration, has drawn widespread criticism for infringing on privacy and civil rights. However, the main driver for the change in this policy seems to be the 800-million-pound cost. Also in the article, indications of a larger bill aimed at reforms to the DNA database, tighter regulation of CCTV, and a review of libel laws."

Comments

800-Million pound cost

[dimethylxanthine]

Sometimes I just can't believe what we spend our money on...

Re:800-Million pound cost

[ledow]

The UK military expenditure currently costs about 2.5% of the £1.8 trillion GDP. That's about £45 billion. Therefore ID cards for every citizen in the country cost, in total over the last ten years, approximately 1.7% of the total military (peacetime) budget for *this* year. Call it 2% to actually finish the scheme and issue the cards for free.

Depending on how you look at it, that can be read as ridiculous in any number of ways. Or to put it in perspective - £800m is approximately 25% of the EU farming subsidies that we pay each year, or twice the amount we pay in "R&D for Environmental protection" each year, or 1% of the old-age-pensions for this year. Now consider that the £800m is the TOTAL for the whole scheme from start to finish to create a national ID card, and that's not actually that much. It's just because it's stated in big numbers, but you're taking those from HUMONGOUS numbers to jump to conclusions. £800m over ten years is £80m a year, which is about £2.70 per working taxpayer per year, roughly. Now consider that the average working UK citizen probably pays about £4000 per year in income tax alone, from a salary of £24k. In actual fact, having http://www.goal.com/en-india/news/2171/premier-league/2010/04/18/1883371/liverpool-owner-tom-hicks-wants-800m-for-the-club

(PS: Got my data from World Bank / ukpublicspending.co.uk / HMRC statistics / other reliable sources).

Re:800-Million pound cost

[ledow]

Mmm... post got cut off halfway:

The UK military expenditure currently costs about 2.5% of the £1.8 trillion GDP. That's about £45 billion. Therefore ID cards for every citizen in the country cost, in total over the last ten years, approximately 1.7% of the total military (peacetime) budget for *this* year. Call it 2% to actually finish the scheme and issue the cards for free.

Depending on how you look at it, that can be read as ridiculous in any number of ways. Or to put it in perspective - £800m is approximately 25% of the EU farming subsidies that we pay each year, or twice the amount we pay in "R&D for Environmental protection" each year, or 1% of the old-age-pensions for this year. Now consider that the £800m is the TOTAL for the whole scheme from start to finish to create a national ID card, and that's not actually that much. It's just because it's stated in big numbers, but you're taking those from HUMONGOUS numbers to jump to conclusions. £800m over ten years is £80m a year, which is about £2.70 per working taxpayer per year, roughly. Now consider that the average working UK citizen probably pays about £4000 per year in income tax alone, from a salary of £24k. In actual fact, having less than 75% of working age in employment means that we lose £40b a year in income tax from those people, not counting the benefits, etc. that are paid to them.

£800m for a nationwide offical government project is *NOTHING* and people should really worry about other things (like how they are going to survive in their old age if pensions cost already more than ANYTHING else in the UK government budgets). I'm not a supporter of ID cards AT ALL, but stating figures and then going "OOhh, that's a lot" is pointless unless you put them in perspective. The council tax owing to local councils at the moment probably covers the entire 10-year-expenditure on ID cards.

In perspective, £800m is nothing. Liverpool football club would cost about that to buy, according to this horribly-pop-up'ped page: http://www.goal.com/en-india/news/2171/premier-league/2010/04/18/1883371/liverpool-owner-tom-hicks-wants-800m-for-the-club

(PS: Got my data from World Bank / ukpublicspending.co.uk / HMRC statistics / other reliable sources).

Re:800-Million pound cost

[TDyl]

"and issue the cards for free."

The cards were never going to be issued for free; they were going to be forced on us and we would have had to pay for them (in fact the 15,000ish who had purchased the cards before the election have been told they will not get refunds but, instead, will have a souvenir of "historical" note).

The purchase price of the cards was meant to cover the operating costs of the scheme; government don't pay - we do. They take our taxes, then want more stealth taxes.

Re:800-Million pound cost

[squizzar]

Yeah, I liked the way that in true labour spin the cards weren't going to cost the taxpayers anything because the scheme would be paid for by people buying the cards. You know what, if it came out of my taxes at least it's not from my already taxed income, bastards.

Re:800-Million pound cost

[magpie]

800-Million is a shedload for a scheme that no one wanted except a few people that bought what ever the excuse was that week. I MEAN WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY MEANT TO BE FOR? First to fight terrorism...they couldn't figure out how they would help as the july seven attackers would have had valid ones anyway, then to combat benefit fraud....then they figured that benefit ID fraud costs less than the scheme would, then it was to help against ID theft online.....they didn't stick with that one for long as even they couldn't come up with how it could possibly work , then it was easier travel in Europe..... but they never told the travel companies and none of them accepted them, then they were to stop illegal immigration....then they realised the kind of people that employ illegal immigrants is not likely to check for ID, the last reason I saw was as an easy way for people to prove their age to buy drinks....then they realised that perhaps promoting them as a card that lets young people get legless might clash with the how cracking down on yob culture thing. The only reason I could see for anyone to want them is to allow them to monitor the population and generally allow the government stick their nose into other peoples business. Not a reason I too keen on.

Re:800-Million pound cost

[rtfa-troll]

Firstly, 800 Million is the implementation cost. There would still be running costs long term. Also, this seems to be a low number; No2ID identified a billion worth of contracts.

There are also other costs; e.g. organisations which would be required to check the ID card would have to link into the scheme. And finally, this isn't the only one in this set of pointless database schemes. If they also cancelled the scheme to link the whole NHS together that would save really lots.

As they say, a billion here, a billion there. Soon it starts to add up to real money.

Re:800-Million pound cost

[Anonymous Coward]

Because governments provide funding for thousands of different causes and projects, EVERY individual project, when taken in percentage terms of the total, will appear to be tiny and trivial. The argument 'why cancel it when it saves so little money' is therefore a fallacy. See also: Standard CO2 Reduction Counter-argument ("$activity only produces $smallpercentage of total CO2 emissions therefore why bother trying to reduce it further").

Re:800-Million pound cost

[siloko]

(PS: Got my data from World Bank / ukpublicspending.co.uk / HMRC statistics / other reliable sources).

I work for a research science group and I so, so wish I could cite reliable source when writing up!

Re:800-Million pound cost

[Malc]

Hang on, try reading TFA. It says:

By February 2010, the scheme's costs over its lifetime had ballooned to an estimated £4.5bn.

That's considerably more than 800 million quid.

Re:800-Million pound cost

[Anonymous Coward]

And in turn, the annual military expenditure is **LESS** than the interest we pay on our debt.

Re:800-Million pound cost

[xcut]

That is because you forgot to read the further information detailing that the cards would be sold for money, hence the cost is not all unfunded. £800m is the unfunded cost, AFAIK.

Re:800-Million pound cost

[Anonymous Coward]

To put it into perspective, £800M would pay the salaries for about 3,500 nurses for the next 10 years, or we could do as OP seems to think fitting and throw it away on a pointless card scheme that the public don't want and the government (the former government, sorry) couldn't even identify a real use for. That's assuming they ever got it in for 800M, I've worked in the government sector and everything is always wildly over budget.

Re:800-Million pound cost

[delinear]

I've been debt free my whole life, so technically I'm paying the interest on everyone else's debt, you insensitive clod!

Re:800-Million pound cost

[FuckingNickName]

Eh? Compulsory purchase of government service = tax.

Except by this method your tax is taken from net rather than gross income, so you can add another 30% to the "funded cost" if you want...

Re:800-Million pound cost

[fiannaFailMan]

The people who really wanted to push this were the civil servants. Every time a new Home Secretary steps in, the civil servants immediately pitch this hare-brained scheme to him and until recently it was always rejected. David Blunkett was the first to take the bait.

Re:800-Million pound cost

[Anonymous Coward]

Hang on, try reading TFA. It says:

By February 2010, the scheme's costs over its lifetime had ballooned to an estimated £4.5bn.

That's considerably more than 800 million quid.

And remember that that didn't include the cost of any card readers. (estimate another 4 Billion)
Add about another billion a year to run the thing.

And that was if you believed the Governent's cost estimates.
Other estimates were up to 20 Billion.

Re:800-Million pound cost

[Ricwot]

You might say he was blind to the implications.

No surprise

[ranulf]

This was never really a surprise as it was one of their manifesto pledges to get rid of this project which was always going to be colossal waste of money and probably trivially crackable in a few years time anyway. That said, I'm really glad it's gone. This was just one of the many ways the previous Labour government was trying to erode the civil liberties in this country...

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the fall of the soviet union, the evil labour empire turned out, after the fact to be a bit goofy.

Queen of evil Jacky smith...got laughed out in the end.

Re:No surprise

[Ash Vince]

It was also irrelevant anyway since the vast majority of people in britain now have a photo driving licence that performs the same function. You are already legally required to tell the DVLA where you live, and they immediately inform the police to update on the Police National Computer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_National_Computer

Since we already are required by law to carry our driving licence while driving most people just keep it in their wallet. This allows the police to stop and search you at any time and find out who you are. Stop and search in the UK does not require a warrant.

The ID card scheme was basically a way of legally requiring something which we already have pretty much by stealth anyway for most law abiding citizens. The difference is that they could have used it to hassle illegal immigrants and people who have something to hide more if it was more rigidly codified in law. We all are forced to carry our bankcards and god knows what else that proves who we are so who cares about on more piece of ID being forced upon us. I only objected to being charged for it, via txation or directly.

If the new government really want to sort out the crap Labour passed they need to repeal the Regulation of Investigatory Powers and Terrorism Acts. I have a feeling those are both here to stay though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000

Re:No surprise

[JPRelph]

Since we already are required by law to carry our driving licence while driving most people just keep it in their wallet. This allows the police to stop and search you at any time and find out who you are. Stop and search in the UK does not require a warrant.

We're not required to have it with us while driving. If you don't have it on you the Police can demand that you take it into a Police station within 7 days though.

Re:No surprise

[AmiMoJo]

This was never really a surprise as it was one of their manifesto pledges

What? A party got into government and lived up to it's manifesto promises? I find that pretty surprising...

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

We ARE required to have ALL documentation available when driving. It's an offence to be unable to produce it. However, common sense prevails and we end up with the 7 day wonder if they really want to see it. It's still an offence though.

Re:No surprise

[Shimbo]

Road Traffic Act 1988, section 164 (8)

(8) In proceedings against any person for the offence of failing to produce a licence it shall be a defence for him to show that—

(a) within seven days after the production of his licence was required he produced it in person at a police station that was specified by him at the time its production was required

Re:No surprise

[dnwq]

The Conservative party used to back national ID cards; it moved onto the Labor platform when Labor won in 1997.

The simplest explanation is that the ruling party simply represented the interests of the Home Office, and the same now that the excessive cost has been amply demonstrated. Had the price tag not been so high, even a Lib Dem government wouldn't have dismantled it.

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

This was never really a surprise as it was one of their manifesto pledges to get rid of this project which was always going to be colossal waste of money and probably trivially crackable in a few years time anyway. That said, I'm really glad it's gone. This was just one of the many ways the previous Labour government was trying to erode the civil liberties in this country...

If cost is an issue, then how is it that India with a 20 times greater population will be able to affordably collect and store biometric IDs ?

Re:No surprise

[duguk]

Stop and search in the UK does not require a warrant.

Am I incorrect in thinking that it does require "Reasonable Suspicion" - random searches are not permitted (apart from under terrorism legislation)?

Re:No surprise

[carvell]

Yes, it's an offence to be unable to produce it, but you have 7 days to do so at a police station of your choice. See the Road Traffic Act.

Re:No surprise

[Ash Vince]

My point still stands though, most people just carry their photo driving licence with them anyway. How many people out there are really walking around with no form of ID? The licencing laws here in Britain now requires all people under the age of 25 to be required to produce ID to buy booze as well.

The fact is that the national ID card was going to cost us all a fortune, but not really make any other difference to our everyday lives since most law abiding citizens have loads proovable ID on them at all times anyway. It might not all be legally recognised, but it is still a pretty sure way to prove who you are just by searching your wallet.

Re:No surprise

[Gandalf_the_Beardy]

Partly. The Criminal Justice Act 1994 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/ukpga_19940033_en_7#pt4-pb2-l1g60 provides for example in s60 the right to temporarily search anyone or any vehicle without suspicion if violent disorder is anticipated. The main search laws etc are in PACE, and these generally do require reasonable grounds. http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1871554&ActiveTextDocId=1871558

Re:No surprise

[Malc]

Isn't the photo part only valid with the separate paper part too?

Crazy.

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, while many people have photocard driving licenses these are not mandatory. I still have a paper license which is perfectly legal (if a bit on the old side).

Re:No surprise

[delinear]

Don't they expire after 10 years or something? In any event you're forced to get a photo one if you ever change address, change your name or just lose your old one, so it's only a matter of time.

Re:No surprise

[delinear]

That being the case, why didn't the Labour government declare their intention to do the same as an easy win prior to the election? If they'd got in, they'd be able to use the "saving public money in dire times" argument, and if (as happened) they lost they could use the "they're just stealing our ideas" argument.

Re:No surprise

[delinear]

He didn't say cost was an issue, he said it was a colossal waste of money. Just because we (and India) can afford it, doesn't mean it's a good idea or that it's not a huge waste of money better spent elsewhere.

Re:No surprise

[FoamingToad]

Replying logged in this time. The photocard needs to be renewed every ten years, but there is no such restriction on the old-format paper license. I've just checked mine (which normally resides in a locked filing cabinet) and it's good for another 30 years or so. I'm not likely to change my name, so change of address is the only likely thing. I've lived in my current place for about thirteen years though, and I'm in no hurry to move.

Re:No surprise

[Ash Vince]

Isn't the photo part only valid with the separate paper part too?

Yup, but it doesn't really matter if it is valid or not in the context of proving who you are if stopped and searched. It also does not stop most people keeping their nice, credit card sized driving licence in with their credit cards for convenience. I am convinced this was the main reason for moving to a credit card sized photo driving licence anyway. It made perfect sense in my mind to do away with a driving licence completely one we were all legally forced to carry a photo ID.

I would have been happy to carry a single piece of state provided ID if it allowed me the freedom to travel anywhere in Europe without a passport and removed my need to pay for a new photo driving licence every ten years. ID cards in theory could have my life easier, but not in the form they were being implemented.

Re:No surprise

[Malc]

I was very happy with my paper driving license. It was valid til my 70th birthday, and stayed at home in a drawer. I have no problem grabbing my passport from the same drawer when I go travelling overseas. The new license doesn't really offer me anything, other than having to renew it every few years. Why do I need to carry ID again?

Re:No surprise

[horza]

We all are forced to carry our bankcards

Really? Since when?

Phillip.

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

People under 25 are not required to produce ID. There's just a scheme in place to promote ID'ing people who look under 25 because 17 year olds can make themselves up to look like they're in their early 20s. It's just the shops trying to protect themselves against prosecution. I cannot find a single mention of a requirement for ID if under 25 in the entire Licensing Act 2003.

Re:No surprise

[mpe]

My point still stands though, most people just carry their photo driving licence with them anyway.

Driving is not mandatory in the UK. It isn't even the case in the US...

How many people out there are really walking around with no form of ID?

You don't need "ID" to walk :)

The licencing laws here in Britain now requires all people under the age of 25 to be required to produce ID to buy booze as well.

Actually this has nothing to do with any law, it's a policy created by supermarkets.

Re:No surprise

[mpe]

It made perfect sense in my mind to do away with a driving licence completely one we were all legally forced to carry a photo ID.

Actually it dosn't. Since proving who you are is different from proving which (if any) motor vehicles you may operate on a public road.

I would have been happy to carry a single piece of state provided ID if it allowed me the freedom to travel anywhere in Europe without a passport and removed my need to pay for a new photo driving licence every ten years. ID cards in theory could have my life easier, but not in the form they were being implemented.

The more things a document can do the more it is likely to be misused. Multi-purpose "ID cards" make "identity theft" easier not harder.

Re:No surprise

[JimBobJoe]

the vast majority of people in britain now have a photo driving licence that performs the same function

Well now that the National ID scheme is/has been killed, now it's time to call up your MP and ask them to make the photo optional on the driving licence.

The mandatory photograph was added by the Labour government. Supposedly it was an effort to standardise licences in Europe, but the UK has a knack for getting opt-outs, here's a chance to get another.

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Someone has already called you out on saying that you have to carry your driving license (and in any case, even if you had your driving license, you'd still have to go to a police station with the paper bit and your insurance certificate anyway).
I'm going to call you out on the Police's ability to find out who you are when making a stop and search. The right the search you does not normally extend to opening and searching your wallet. You also don't have to identify yourself verbally when stopped and searched.

The difference between driving licenses and compulsory ID cards is that you didn't HAVE to have a driving license. You don't have to own one, let alone carry it with you or produce it on demand. This means that there's no point in setting up any system which requires people to produce a driving license. Once you've got everyone forced to own and carry and ID card, why not make every interraction with a government service (and some private ones) dependent on it? Doctor's appointment, bank transaction, library borrowing, getting more recycling bags, happening to walk past a police cordon on the street. Once you set up that, you have enormous scope for intrusively tracking people.
Hell, you could require unique RFID tags to be put into products, require people to produce their ID card at the supermarket checkout, record who bought which specific product, and then prosecute them if that particular produce wrapper is found blowing down the street. 'The computer doesn't lie, here's a large fine.'
With no compulsory ID cards, none of that stuff is possible.

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite a lot of people in the UK actually don't have a drivers licence. Quite a lot more have a foreign drivers licence (especially the new immigrants that were the first target of the ID card scheme).

Re:No surprise

[Ricwot]

I generally find that if I frown at them and say "really?", they give up and sell me booze. Or they get a manager and the same thing happens. Worst case I go next door, and they lose business.
There's no way I'm carrying around expensive to replace documents unless I need to.

Re:No surprise

[Grumbleduke]

Am I incorrect in thinking that it does require "Reasonable Suspicion" - random searches are not permitted (apart from under terrorism legislation)?

I think the key phrase there is "apart from under terrorism legislation". When you've got stop and search powers that can be used "whether or not the constable has grounds for suspecting" anything at all (from Section 45(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 200 - note the year) it doesn't really matter if other laws require suspicion. Of course, in theory the police officer needs to have authorisation for each specific area where this takes place (either written or oral confirmed in writing), which runs out after 28 days, but that authorisation (from a senior police officer) can be renewed, so I think the entirety of Greater London has been an "area of high terrorist risk" or whatever for years.

Re:No surprise

[Grumbleduke]

PACE (updated by the Section 110 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2003 iirc) not only requires reasonable grounds for suspecting that the arrest is needed (which a pretty strong checklist of circumstantial requirements), it also requires some sort of offence to have been committed (or reasonable suspicion of one). Under PACE, a police officer can't just arrest anyone (in theory).

But again, under the various bits of terrorism legislation (not anti-terrorism legislation, note; terrorism in that it is designed to terrify the people) all this is rather academic.

Re:No surprise

[Ash Vince]

I'm going to call you out on the Police's ability to find out who you are when making a stop and search. The right the search you does not normally extend to opening and searching your wallet. You also don't have to identify yourself verbally when stopped and searched.

Just check and found this page from the Metropolitan Police: http://www.met.police.uk/stopandsearch/what_is.htm

A Quote from the page describing a stop and search:

"STOP AND SEARCH - when a police officer stops and then searches you, your clothes and anything you are carrying."

This seems to imply they can search your wallet. I would be very surprised if they neglected to do so since it is a likely place for drugs to be found. There is certainly no legal exemption to prevent them from using stop and search to obtain your identity via your wallet. so yes, you do not have to identify yourself verbally, but they can search you to get around this providing they can find some legal grounds. The problem is that you have very little recourse after you have been searched to appeal if the grounds they used were somewhat spurious.

wow

[roman_mir]

A government that actually gives up some power over people. I am speechless.

Re:wow

[stupid_is]

well, at least the 15,000 folks that bought one won't be getting a refund.

And the project isn't really canned, as it will be rolled out for non-EU foreign nationals wishing to stay (cue thin end of wedge) so most of the contractors will still stay on the gravy train.

Re:wow

[minus9]

"well, at least the 15,000 folks that bought one won't be getting a refund"

I must admit I enjoyed that the people who thought this was a good idea have completely wasted their money.

Re:wow

[NickFortune]

A government that actually gives up some power over people. I am speechless.

The wonder of a coalition government. Neither side has the support to hammer through anything too extreme. So they're forced to actually do their jobs, rather than repeatedly kicking the electorate in the nuts and claiming they have a mandate to do so.

It probably won't last, but as long as it does, this current lot may actually accomplish some good for the country.

Re:wow

[tnok85]

A government that actually considers this amount of money to be too much to spend on something. I am speechless.

Re:wow

[chthon]

I just finished reading A History of England. If there is really anything which stands out in its history, it is the fact that English rule did not really have much power until the 19th century.

Re:wow

[Chrisq]

Someone on the radio said that in 20 years time they will be collectors items, and worth more than many £30 investments.

Re:wow

[shadowknot]

It's probably true that it will be a collectors item but it'll be grouped among the likes Betamax video player, the Sinclair C5, HD-DVD and other failed innovations in that people will likely remember it but not give a hoot about shelling out any serious cash to have it (the C5 may be an exception in that list). In 100 years time, if there still is a society, it may be worth something.

Re:wow

[TheRaven64]

well, at least the 15,000 folks that bought one won't be getting a refund.

Good. I have absolutely no problem with financial penalties for people who voluntarily opt in to a surveillance state. Hopefully this will provide some negative reinforcement and make them less likely to do it again.

Re:wow

[BasilBrush]

Many probably don't feel they wasted their money. They'll have bought the ID card because they had a need for an easy way to identify themselves. E.g. Proof of age for buying alcohol. For such uses, the card will no doubt continue to be accepted just as before.

Re:wow

[jez9999]

Everyone get out there and vote YES for AV in the referendum to make this kind of thing more likely in the long-term. Then if we get a referendum on STV, vote YES to it to make it almost certain.

Re:wow

[fastest fascist]

This seems plenty extreme to me, compared to the direction Britain has been going in previous years.

Re:wow

[BasilBrush]

It has nothing to do with it being a coalition government. Both Conservative and Lib Dem parties had scrapping the ID card in their manifestos. If either one had formed a majority (single party) government, the news today would be the same.

Re:wow

[horza]

They are also going to stop storing the DNA of innocent people in their database and to introduce legislation restricting CCTV cameras. I'm starting to like these guys.

Phillip.

Re:wow

[dave420]

Surveillance state? The cards are just like drivers licenses in the US. Most people simply used them to prove how old they were, or to travel within the EU without having to take their passport with them. People who bought them had a use for them, which will still be possible, as they are still government-issued ID cards, regardless of which actual government issued them.

Re:wow

[NickFortune]

This seems plenty extreme to me, compared to the direction Britain has been going in previous years.

With a name like "fastest fascist", I expect it probably does.

Re:wow

[NickFortune]

Both Conservative and Lib Dem parties had scrapping the ID card in their manifestos. If either one had formed a majority (single party) government, the news today would be the same.

Or, you know, the Tories could have put the measure on the back burner for three years and eventually announced that the situation had changed and the ID scheme was suddenly vital for national security.

Just because it's in their manifestos does not mean they have any intention of doing it. It just means it's something they thought would help get them elected.

Re:wow

[TheRaven64]

By opting in to the ID card scheme, you opt in to the national ID register, providing huge amounts of personal information (including biometrics) to a centralised government database. The Gestapo and Stasi would have absolutely loved to have such a resource.

Re:wow

[Hognoxious]

Most people simply used them to prove how old they were, or to travel within the EU without having to take their passport with them.

How did they do that? The UK was never part of the Schengen system.

Re:wow

[rich_r]

But it is part of the EU, which means national identity cards are accepted as an alternative to passports, where border crossings still check them.

Re:wow

[zennyboy]

As long as you don't mind someone having your biometric data

Re:wow

[Hognoxious]

You cannot cross from the UK to anywhere (except Ireland) without a passport, EU or not.

Re:wow

[AllyGreen]

Actually, according to the bbc news they won't be valid in 100 days.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Important to note that the lib dems were against ID cards on principle - I recall a few years ago the then current leader stating he'd go to jail rather than carry one, the tories are only against the idea because of the cost. Very pleased to see the lib dems affecting decisions in gov, hopfully they'll quash any tory evil.

Re:wow

[rich_r]

Yes you can- that was one of the points of the ID cards. Indeed, you've still got ~100 days to enjoy passport-less travel from the UK to EU destinations.

Re:wow

[wxwz]

Bullshit. State issued identity cards are valid travel documents between any EU countries, including the UK. I frequently travel to the UK with my Austrian ID card.

Re:wow

[growse]

If a referendum for AV is held, and won, you can pretty much guarantee there won't ever be a referendum for STV.

AV is arguably even less proportional than FPTP and only exists so that the two main parties can claim that they've fulfilled the public's wishes for 'electoral reform' without actually losing any of the benefits the current twisted system provides them.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

But not the UK ones, which are currently not recognised and probably never will.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need ANYTHING to cross Schengen borders, though it doesn't matter because most of the states require you to have some form of ID with you at all times.

Re:wow

[thsths]

And you cannot register a car with the ID card - again you need a passport or drivers license. It was a really pointless card, trying to detract from the fact that the real "value" is in the database.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

only most drives licences dont carry biometric information on them last time i checked

Re:wow

[somersault]

Wouldn't the data be stored on a database rather than the card?

And even if it wasn't.. if you really didn't want people to have your "biometric data" then you'd have to walk around in a hazmat suit all the time, otherwise you're just leaving your DNA and fingerprints all over the place. The only slightly awkward one to get would be a retina scan, and were those even on the ID cards?

Re:wow

[Timmmm]

AV isn't about proportional representation! It's about removing the frustration of tactical voting.

It will probably still result in a more representative parliament though, and it is a complete lie to say it is 'less proportional the FPTP'. FPTP is about the worse voting system possible.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

If we get AV or STV, this kind of thing will never happen again. We will permanently have a Labour government with the socialist side of the LDs.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, not really since most of it was on the database, which is going to be destroyed. But they will still have your personal details and your ugly mugshot.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The big picture matters when it comes to government and electoral reform. For example, an elected second chamber based on PR, and an elected first chamber using AV rather than FPTP, would still be a big step up for democracy compared to what we have today.

As others have noted, the point of AV is not to achieve proportional representation, it is to negate tactical voting. Right now, anyone who claims to know what effect that would have in the long term is deluding themselves. There is no way to predict what would happen to turnout, what would happen in formerly marginal constituencies, or how smaller or single-issue parties would fare if voting for them as first choice did not mean you couldn't also express a preference between the big parties.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Important to note that the lib dems were against ID cards on principle - I recall a few years ago the then current leader stating he'd go to jail rather than carry one

For the avoidance of doubt, the then-current leader is still the leader, Nick Clegg, and is also now the Deputy Prime Minister.

Re:wow

[Gandalf_the_Beardy]

You most certainly can. French national ID cards are perfectly valid and I know someone who travels on those documents regularly.

Re:wow

[crimperman]

There [we|a]re other ways to prove your age and ID though: drivers licence for one. True not everybody has a need for one of those though.

The ID card itself was never the issue as far as (and most of the people I know) were concerned. We've had ID cards here before: during and after the second world war for example and carrying some form of ID is common place for many. The main issue was the national registration database behind the cards (which is also about to be scrapped).

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

No that is ESS you are thinking about, National ID cards instead of passports are not valid in the UK, well for practical purposes they are, but not legally. Also, I may not leave my country (Sweden) to travel to the UK using my National ID card, I must use my passport, however coming back to Sweden is perfectly fine. And since it's OK to travel from Germany to the UK with the national ID card (it's a de facto standard but not really supposed to be that way) I can hop on a plane to Germany with my national ID card, switch planes there to UK and then home home to Sweden, all without using my passport.

Bureaucracy!

Re:wow

[zennyboy]

Good point ;-)

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, according to the bbc news they won't be valid in 100 days.

Fixed that for you: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8707355.stm

Re:wow

[dave420]

And the Nazis would have loved nuclear weapons, so I guess we should scrap those, too? I love this game!

Re:wow

[Dilligent]

wrong, I've travelled frequently from Germany to Scotland and was never asked for a passport. A German ID card was always sufficient.

Re:wow

[ubercam]

No I don't believe retina scans were part of it.

I was issued a UK fiancé visa back in March and had my fingerprints taken digitally and a digital photograph as well for biometrics purposes. I suppose they measure the distance between your lips and nose and eyes and stuff. For fingerprints, the scanner might have looked at the blood vessel structure inside the fingers instead of the prints, but I can't be certain on that.

I'm glad the ID cards are gone now, mainly for privacy reasons, but if I could have used it as an EU travel document (despite my status as a foreign citizen), I would have put up with it for ease of travel.

Re:wow

[delinear]

Worse for the people who just shelled out £300 on a HIPs pack to sell their house right before the new government announced they were being canned.

Re:wow

[delinear]

What would have been useful is a card which could be "upgraded" to show both passport and driver's license details, so you just pay for the one card (which functions as basic ID) and then you pay a nominal bolt on fee for the others (still going through the usual processes to attain them first), and that way you don't have to remember all your cards or pay several government departments when you change address/name/etc (or when you initially buy the card), young people still get a government backed means to identify themselves but one that doesn't become useless when they get a driver's license/passport. That system, minus the database, would make the cards worth having (they could maybe link it into other systems too, banking, etc - I'd really like to have one card I could use everywhere and not have to carry around a wallet full of plastic, I guess it would be a major hassle if you ever lost it, mind...)

Re:wow

[mr_lizard13]

People who bought them had a use for them, which will still be possible, as they are still government-issued ID cards, regardless of which actual government issued them.

Actually, no... "The cards will be invalidated with no refunds to purchasers. Those wishing to travel will need to purchase a passport instead".
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity_card_(United_Kingdom)

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I like Alterac Valley and Stranglethorn Vale as much as the next guy, but voting for your favorite WoW zones in a national referendum is pretty hardcore. I didn't know Cameron and Clegg were MMO addicts too ;)

Or perhaps you're referring to some other acronyms which you helpfully didn't explain.

Re:wow

[mpe]

The big picture matters when it comes to government and electoral reform. For example, an elected second chamber based on PR, and an elected first chamber using AV rather than FPTP, would still be a big step up for democracy compared to what we have today.

More voting does not result in more democracy. It may even result in a less representative government if both chambers are being filled from the same group of people. Things might actually work better if ex MPs were removed from the Lords even if "life peers" were abolished entirely. (With any new hereditary peerages skipping 2 or 3 generations.)
There's even the option of going "back to basics" with random selection of people. Which tends to ensure that legislators have to "eat their own dogfood".

Re:wow

[mpe]

By opting in to the ID card scheme, you opt in to the national ID register, providing huge amounts of personal information (including biometrics) to a centralised government database. The Gestapo and Stasi would have absolutely loved to have such a resource.

AFAIK these German organisations wern't renound for "leaking" data all over the place. And/Or being infiltrated by foreign spies.
It might even be more secure to put this information up of Facebook :) At least you'd probably have a better idea of who can get at the information.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

You cannot cross from the UK to anywhere (except Ireland) without a passport, EU or not.

This would be fine were it not for the only EU based terrorists targeting the UK are Irish...

Re:wow

[refitman]

You don't need an ID card to prove your age for things like purchasing alcohol. There is a Validate UK card, which is endorsed by the government. It has the added benefits of not requiring the collection of biometric data and your inclusion on a database (we have all seen how secure they can be).

Re:wow

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Yes, I've always quite liked the idea of inviting, say, 200 randomly selected people who would be eligible for jury service to form the Upper House for a couple of years each, maybe alternating so 100 people change over each year. You'd have to deal with compensation issues that don't arise so much with the short timescales in court or you'd risk winding up with only those who would be earning more in the House taking up the positions, but I'm sure some reasonable system could be devised.

As for voting more, I agree that it does not automatically result in more democracy. However, the point of the system I described would be to maintain the likelihood of a decisive majority on the leading House to propose new legislation with a clear direction, but to keep a proportionate system in the checking House so that any bill that actually got through and onto the books would at least not be so offensive to (the representatives of) the majority of the population that they wished to block it. That is considerably more of a check and balance than we have today.

Re:wow

[BasilBrush]

Even "on the back burner" it would cost money each year. The cost of running the department etc. The Conservatives number one priority is to cut expenditure. There are cuts all over. Of course things that they said they were going to scrap would be in the very first round of cuts. It would not be otherwise.

Re:wow

[mikechant]

AV is arguably even less proportional than FPTP and only exists so that the two main parties can claim that they've fulfilled the public's wishes for 'electoral reform' without actually losing any of the benefits the current twisted system provides them.

The figures I've seen estimate that in the recent election the Lib Dems would have got 20 more seats than they did under FPTP. To me that says that AV could put the Lib Dems in a position where they are more likely to hold the balance of power more often, and eventually will probably be able to engineer some form of proper PR (e.g. AV+ would only be a short jump from AV)

Re:wow

[NickFortune]

The underlying point stands, however. The coalition is a moderating influence. This seems fairly widely accepted by most political commentators.

Re:wow

[BasilBrush]

Oh, I also fully accept that in general a coalition is a moderating influence. It's just that in this specific case it made no difference.

Hardly "sudden"

[Anonymous Coward]

In what would seem to be a sudden outbreak of common sense

Hardly a "sudden" outbreak. We had an election that was hardly a surprise (it was held at basically the last minute it could be, as everyone expected). As a result the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have formed a coalition governement. Both coalition parties have pledged for a long time to scrap ID cards. It was also set out in their initial coalition agreement and it's one of the "freedom" things they feel they have a common platform on. Anyone who is surprised by the suddeness of the plan to scrap ID cards is... well, foreign. Not that there's anything wrong with that of course.

Shame

[drunkahol]

I like mine . . . no really, I do.

Re:Shame

[AGMW]

I like mine . . . no really, I do.

I don't think they will be making it a crime to keep one if you already have it.

Re:Shame

[TheRaven64]

No, but as of September it will no longer be valid as proof of identity, so it's like hanging on to your old student ID card - nostalgia value, no real use.

Re:Shame

[Tim C]

Not officially, but there's nothing stopping any business or person from accepting it as proof - it's just unlikely that anyone will.

Re:Shame

[drunkahol]

Who modded me Funny? I'm serious - I like the scheme. But it's like PIN numbers on credit cards - people HATE change. They'll find a way to criticise it as insecure, big brother, or anything - just to denigrate it.

You think the current system is secure?
You think the current system works well?

Seriously - there are more people who would accept this scheme than is reported in the general press. And the concerns about big brother and invasion of privacy are only equal to the same concerns but of the current system. The new driving licenses are great (apart from the points I've currently got of course). This scheme isn't such a big step away from that.

And to the real privacy concerned brigade . . . get your tin foil hats off.

Re:Shame

[jimbolauski]

It can still get you a few dollars off at the movie theater.

Re:Shame

[value_added]

Admittedly, there's a certain appeal to a one-card-fits-all type of solution. As a resident of the U.S., I have

a CA state drivers license
a Residency Card
a paper SS card
a paper birth certificate

and living in California, I'm pretty much required to tote around in my wallet

a paper auto registration (that doesn't fit anywhere even when folded)
a glossy paper auto insurance card.

I'd add a Canadian passport to the list, but it's expired, and most people in the U.S. have never owned or seen a passport so they're not much good for anything, least of all buying liquor or getting into a bar. Then, of course, there's all those other cards ...

No wonder my ass hurts.

Re:Shame

[VShael]

It's okay. When they dispose of it for you, you can come back here and tell us what you really think.

Re:Shame

[evilandi]

I've actually used my British passport to gain access to several bars in both Mass. and California.

Whether I was allowed entry on the basis that the doorman understood the passport, or whether he realised that the drinking age in the UK was lower and therefore I was probably more experienced in handling my ale [1], or whether he just figured he'd satisfied his requirement for seeing some form of ID and couldn't be bothered to investigate any further, I couldn't possibly comment upon.

[1] A false assumption, especially since I don't drink booze anyway.

Re:Shame

[dave420]

I tried to get in to a bar in Florida by showing my UK passport. The doorman didn't understand what was happening and flagged down a passing police officer to take a look. It took them a good few minutes, literally, to figure out what was happening, that it is actually a form of ID (and a pretty good one at that).

Re:Shame

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's like PIN numbers on credit cards

Wait, do you mean Personal Identification PIN Numbers?

Re:Shame

[Anonymous Coward]

Crap. Just my luck .. spending all my money on a brand new one in Karachi, just 5 months before its scrapped really sucks. Oh well.. wasn't really happy with neither the name nor the picture anyway..

Re:Shame

[LordAndrewSama]

If you're in south africa, student cards can get 50% off driving offences or even being let off with just a verbal warning if the officer is in a good mood. always good to have in your wallet. Not sure about other countries though.

Quaint system...

[bre_dnd]

Of course this will leave in place the quaint system thats currently there -- theres no national register of who lives where. So opening a bank account requires you to bring in a random assortment of water bills, phone bills, as proof of address, getting a passport requires you to get the reverse of your passport photograph signed by "a person of standing" i.e. your doctor or a certified engineer or a company director. Hardly waterproof, really.

To travel to Europe you need to fork out the full fee for a "real passport" rather than the cut-price national-ID card -- most other Europeans can just make do with a national ID card. Or wait -- that might be because Britain is one of the few countries that still does border controls for travel within Europe. Travel north-south from Germany to Holland to Belgium to France to Spain to Portugal and the only thing you notice is the language on the road signs changing, the borders are notionally still there but no checks are done. Im not sure the current system really is that much better.

Re:Quaint system...

[Hope Thelps]

Of course this will leave in place the quaint system thats currently there -- theres no national register of who lives where. So opening a bank account requires you to bring in a random assortment of water bills, phone bills, as proof of address, getting a passport requires you to get the reverse of your passport photograph signed by "a person of standing" i.e. your doctor or a certified engineer or a company director. Hardly waterproof, really.

As compared to what? How did you think they were going to verify who you are for purposes of issing an ID card? You've ruled out anything that evidences your address, you've ruled out passport, you've ruled out testimony of reliable seeming person who knows you. So what's your plan? What is "waterproof"? The whole biometric thing comes AFTER you've established your identity to them, not before.

Re:Quaint system...

[VJ42]

To travel to Europe you need to fork out the full fee for a "real passport"

That's nothing to do with ID of any sort, it's because the UK is not a member of the Schengen Agreement.

Re:Quaint system...

[Hope Thelps]

My understanding is that (some?) countries in the EU who are in Schengen still expect some sort of ID to be carried by people from other Schengen countries - not for crossing borders but for going about your daily life in their country. Maybe I've got that wrong though?

Re:Quaint system...

[clare-ents]

You seem to have forgotten the birth certificate requirement for passport applications.

Re:Quaint system...

[johanw]

Even worse, some countries require their citizens to show an ID card if any police officer asks one. Not doing so in The Netherlands results in a fine of 50 Euro's. Of course all against terrorism. In practice it is mostly used to screw you more when you ride a bicycle at night without lights.

Re:Quaint system...

[Peach Rings]

The point is that once you have an ID card you can just flash it, instead of having to produce all of that documentation just to open a bank account.

Re:Quaint system...

[Hope Thelps]

That might be your point, but it's not the point I was responding to, which concerned how "waterproof" procedures are for identifying people. And "all that documentation" is basically a passport and a recent bill.

Re:Quaint system...

[bre_dnd]

The thing is, I can request *your* birthcertificate in writing if I know your birthplace. I can get a passport photograph signed by a "person of standing" -- I doubt this is actually checked -- fill out the paperwork, and presto, theres my new UK passport with my photo and your identity.

Re:Quaint system...

[VJ42]

My understanding is that (some?) countries in the EU who are in Schengen still expect some sort of ID to be carried by people from other Schengen countries - not for crossing borders but for going about your daily life in their country. Maybe I've got that wrong though?

Yes, some other continental countries have ID card systems, but they are almost all decentralised & none hold anywhere near as much data as the proposed UK one (IIRC ~50 different pieces of info) on a "national identity register" (NIR).

Had a continental style scheme been set up, their would have been far less opposition as the main arguments were against the NIR, not the cards themselves.

Re:Quaint system...

[Dilaudid]

I think you are focusing on a part of the argument that doesn't really matter. I have to prove my identity several times a day. There is no system in the UK for doing this. That seems to be a pretty massive failure of the existing system. Having said all that, even in countries with identity cards, you still need all that crud to open a bank account.

Re:Quaint system...

[newcastlejon]

I have to prove my identity several times a day.

To whom?

Re:Quaint system...

[squizzar]

Yeah, which is backed up by the information you gave possibly decades ago. So when I sign up for a bunch of credit cards, and max them out, the bailiffs can turn up at the house I was renting when I was a student? How often do you open bank accounts anyway?

Re:Quaint system...

[master811]

Yes there is, it's called a Driver's Licence and most people have one anyway. They cost only slightly more than the now old ID card. I really didn't see the point of it anyway when nearly everyone has a licence (whether they can drive or not - even a provisional licence would be fine).

Re:Quaint system...

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, I can request *your* birthcertificate in writing if I know your birthplace.

And that birth certificate will clearly be marked as a duplicate, not the original

Re:Quaint system...

[Dilaudid]

It's always a pain trying to find a "recent bill" when you haven't moved somewhere yet, or when the bills are in someone else's name.
But I suppose that doesn't matter to your point.

Re:Quaint system...

[Anonymous Coward]

The person countersigning the passport photograph must already hold a UK passport and quote their passport number. In other words, the passport authority *could* verify the signature with the one on record for that passport.

Re:Quaint system...

[jhol13]

How often you take money out of a bank account? Or get a loan? How do you show the account 112233-445566 is yours to empty?

While ID cards are far from "waterproof" and have a lot of weaknesses they are significantly better than the alternative.

Re:Quaint system...

[BasilBrush]

As it stands, not everyone can apply for even a provisional driving license. e.g. People under age, people with poor eyesight, people who have had a driving ban. That's discriminatory.

Maybe there could have been the opportunity to modify the driving licence system to also properly function as an ID card. One card instead of two. But that may have been problematic as driving licenses are relevant internationally too - what it means to hold a driving license needs to be clear.

Re:Quaint system...

[Anonymous Coward]

Many (probably most, but I cannot find the percentage figures) people who live in London do not have a driving licence or a car.

Re:Quaint system...

[Hope Thelps]

And that birth certificate will clearly be marked as a duplicate, not the original

Of course - the original is kept at (St Catherine's House ?) anything you have will always be a copy, won't it? In any event, all a birth certificate does is evidence that a birth took place. It doesn't attempt to show who someone is.

But of course this is still the basis an ID card would be issued on, birth certificate, statement by reliable person, utility bill...

Re:Quaint system...

[horza]

I need a random assortment of water bills, phone bills, as proof of address when opening a bank account in France, which does has ID cards. You need to somehow have somebody identify you to get a passport, but then you would to get an ID card too. Most other Europeans do not "make do with ID cards" to travel but are obliged by law to carry one on them at all times (whether traveling or not). You may not notice any border controls but you can be stopped at any time within those borders and asked for no reason to produce an identity card. I have American friends here in France that were thrown in jail for the night for not having their passport on them whilst walking in the street. Britain neither wants nor needs ID cards, and since we are traditionally rubbish at doing large IT projects it would have been an expensive flop anyway.

Phillip.

Re:Quaint system...

[Hognoxious]

I can get a passport photograph signed by a "person of standing" -- I doubt this is actually checked

You're wrong.

Re:Quaint system...

[VJ42]

I have to prove my identity several times a day.

What are you doing? I've only ever had to prove my age, and there's already a much less intrusive national scheme set up for that: http://www.brc.org.uk/pass/default.asp

Re:Quaint system...

[internewt]

Had a continental style scheme been set up, their would have been far less opposition as the main arguments were against the NIR, not the cards themselves.

Absolutely. And the pro-ID people have consistently failed to grasp the gripes all along, and are still missing the point in this discussion! It must be either genuine malice, or terminal ignorance.

Re:Quaint system...

[Anonymous Coward]

With the current system you not only have the provision of a combination of documents but also an element of human interaction.

When you present these documents, to say a bank manager to open an account, they have a responsibilty to judge the authenticity of the information and the validity of your claim. They do this knowing the limitations of the documents presented.

I believe one of the key failings of an ID card system, such as that originally proposed in the UK, is that it is presented as being too secure. It will be too heavily relied upon, to the extent that people will assume it is correct, without question, and the most powerful deterent to fraud, that of human instant and common sense, will be closed out of the loop.

This might be OK, until the security of the system is undermined, as it would have been eventually, by someone.

Re:Quaint system...

[Simmeh]

Most other Schengen countries are landlocked or bordered with several other EU countries. We are an island.

Re:Quaint system...

[Anonymous Coward]

I meant that the birth certificate/copy thereof that A holds is different to the certificate B gets if they request a copy of A's birth certificate, B's is marked out to prevent exactly this sort of thing happening.

Re:Quaint system...

[Hope Thelps]

How often you take money out of a bank account?

A couple of times a month I guess. Larger transactions more rarely... are you suggesting that they ask for ID (beyond pin codes) for that? Unless you're thinking of tens of thousands in cash I can't see it happening. The most I've ever had for large bank transfers is a confirmatory phone call.

Re:Quaint system...

[Hope Thelps]

Really? It must be about fifteen years since I got a copy of my birth certificate but I don't think they asked whether it was in relation to my own birth or not. Nor do I think they could have told who I was anyway other than taking my word on it. Maybe things have chanegd though or maybe my memory's faulty.

Re:Quaint system...

[growse]

And if you've just moved somewhere, why would the ID card have your updated address? Surely you don't think that when you change your address, you'll be able to get an updated ID card immediately?

Re:Quaint system...

[squizzar]

I agree - the system isn't that broken at the moment, and the process to get an ID card wasn't any more stringent than to get a passport or driving license, both of which are commonly obtained by existing identity thieves; how does having an ID card help?

Re:Quaint system...

[maxume]

My state has solved this problem. The license printing apparatus can print more than 1 style of card.

Re:Quaint system...

[RobertLTux]

I think that most of the 50 states have solved the "non driving ID" thing in the same fashion

1 id cards are almost the same as a drivers license but are marked "Identification card" and also have the text
"Not For vehicle operation" on the back side

2 to help solve another problem if you are below drinking age your card is portrait style and not landscape
(and you have a red or yellow frame on your mugshot)

and besides when it counts the folks that want to know can just scan the datablock and check

Re:Quaint system...

[maxume]

Sure. My post is phrased the way it is not because I thought it was particularly novel that my state had solved the problem but because I thought the solution was blisteringly obvious.

Re:Quaint system...

[CmdrGravy]

Even with ID cards you still need to provide proof of address to open a bank account. One of the people who did buy one explained this on Radio 4 this morning. He used his driving licence so in fact it turns out that having an ID card did not make opening bank accounts any easier.

Re:Quaint system...

[Gandalf_the_Beardy]

It is checked - I'm one of the people on the list of those who can countersign and I guess that about 20% of them are verified, might only be a phone call but they do check. For one guy who was coming from shall we say a country of interest they turned up with the application and wanted me to examine and confirm I had filled it all out.

Re:Quaint system...

[the_other_chewey]

I need a random assortment of water bills, phone bills, as proof of address when opening a bank account in France, which does has ID cards.

France has an ID card (which is free, by the way - or paid for by your taxes, if you prefer), but no (mandatory) registry of residency.
There's no mandatory record of where people live.

Germany e.g. has an ID card (which is mandatory for those without passports, and has to be paid separately) and a mandatory registry of residency.
Although the record can be out of date by quite a bit, (the "your landlord has to notify the registry" rule has been abolished a
while ago, and fines for not registering changes of residency are on the moderate side), you never need more than your ID card to
open any kind of account there.

Another advantage of the "registered residents" system: Everyone with a right to vote is automatically inscribed on the electoral
roll and invited by mail to upcoming elections.

Of course, having you residence on record has its disadvantages too, and I understand those that don't like the idea.

Re:Quaint system...

[jhol13]

They do ask ID in Finland.

So what happens when your account has lost money, who takes the loss? You or the bank?

Re:Quaint system...

[Eunuchswear]

The person countersigning the passport photograph must already hold a UK passport and quote their passport number.

Nope, I live in France, If I can't find an appropriate brit to countersign my application a worthy frog will do. (Usually ask my doctor - takes a hell of a long time explaining why I need to do it, usually resulting in uncontrollable laughter).

Re:Quaint system...

[evilandi]

I recently discovered that the answer to this bureaucratic conundrum is a letter written by your solicitor (real estate lawyer) confirming exchange of contracts on possession of your new home.

I had to get exactly that letter in order to apply for a state school place for my daughter. The deadline for applications was 15 Jan 2010, and we were due to move house on 29 Jan.

Laugh a minute, that was.

Re:Quaint system...

[Eunuchswear]

Most other Europeans do not "make do with ID cards" to travel but are obliged by law to carry one on them at all times (whether traveling or not).

But not in France. If you don't have any ID on your person you can be asked to present one at the police station within a few days. If you have no ID and no cash they used to be able to claim you were a vagrant and chuck you in the cells, but I think that's gone now.

Re:Quaint system...

[Gandalf_the_Beardy]

The British people have never tolerated a register of where they live open to all officialdom - only in WW2 was it tolerated and it got kicked out shortly afterwards. Identity (of which there is a national birth register) is a totally different thing to address which is why passports have never had your address on them.

Re:Quaint system...

[Peach Rings]

The human factor is exactly what it's trying to eliminate, because it's worthless.

Re:Quaint system...

[evilandi]

Yup. I've got three kids. Got them passports before the age of 1 to visit Auntie in Holland, and the passport agency rang up the "person of standing" two times out of the three applications.

Re:Quaint system...

[evilandi]

>We are an island

Apart from the land border we share with the Irish Republic, for which no passport is required.

Re:Quaint system...

[Eunuchswear]

I'm one of the people on the list of those who can countersign

A Minister of Religion?

That person should be a British citizen,other British national or Commonwealth citizen who is a Member of Parliament, Justice of the Peace, Minister of Religion, Bank Officer, Established Civil Servant, or professionally qualified person, e.g. Lawyer, Engineer, Doctor, School Teacher, Police Officer or a person of similar standing.

Re:Quaint system...

[PeterBrett]

That person should be a British citizen,other British national or Commonwealth citizen who is a Member of Parliament, Justice of the Peace, Minister of Religion, Bank Officer, Established Civil Servant, or professionally qualified person, e.g. Lawyer, Engineer, Doctor, School Teacher, Police Officer or a person of similar standing.

In practice, I've recently seen a lot of griping from fellow professional engineers in one of the trade journals about how the passport office hasn't been recognising their professional standing to countersign their friends' passport photos...

Re:Quaint system...

[carvell]

They don't check anything. I'm constantly requesting copies of birth certificates (genealogy) and I've never been asked anything. Just find the person whose certificate you're after, look them up in the BMD indexes and bingo bango, one officially approved birth certificate arrives in the post a week or so later.

Re:Quaint system...

[Nevynxxx]

Well, actually we are a whole set of islands, apart from the land border we share with the Irish Republic. What would it take to get us classified officially as an archipelago?

Re:Quaint system...

[Dr. Hok]

Most other Europeans do not "make do with ID cards" to travel but are obliged by law to carry one on them at all times (whether traveling or not).

Here in Germany you can get fined for not carrying an ID (IIRC around 10 EUR), but I never actually saw this happen.

Back in the days when Berlin was under allied law (until 1990), allied soldiers were actually allowed to kill you on the spot if you didn't show your ID, but AFAIK they never did that.

BTW, I don't understand what is so bad about an ID card (without the biometric stuff and central data mining). It's a convenient standardized item that you can use anywhere (except US liquor stores) to prove your identity. It has been around here since I don't know when, and it doesn't seem to turn this country into a nightmare.

Re:Quaint system...

[Gandalf_the_Beardy]

I could sign in any of my capacities of company director, Chartered Chemist or as a member of the BCS - most people belonging to organisations that grant postnominals by letters patent will be able to countersign.

Re:Quaint system...

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite so - all biometrics (like, uh, a photograph...) only verify you are the legitimate holder of that document - they do not prove the veracity of the information on that document. That means you can have a perfectly valid biometric ID that is accepted as gospel truth by the authorities yet is based on completely bogus information.

Re:Quaint system...

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly speaking I don't believe your story that "your American friends have been thrown in jail for the night for not having their passport on the them whilst walking in the street."
I'm also a foreigner, and I believe this is quite visible, I have been living in France for 4 years now, and I have never been asked to show any identity card. Most of my friends here are foreigners and I have never heard that anybody has ever been checked in the streets. Come on!

I tell you a true story: A friend of a friend of mine was traveling by plane and he had horrible hemorhoids, and sitting on the toilet in the plane he flushed it, and all his inner parts were sucked out, even the brain. No kidding! You, know, just like Americans being jailed for one night in France for not having their passports with them... and then when the plane landed, they just found an empty shell sitting there. And it is true, it was a friend of friend of mine...

Re:Quaint system...

[trigpoint]

Several times a week, but the ATM is happy with the Debit card and PIN.

Re:Quaint system...

[Hope Thelps]

It's never happened to me, but if you mean a situation where the bank has paid money to someone else thinking they were me then I would expect that they still owe me the money. Just like if I was to pay money to the wrong person, that wouldn't absolve me of responsibility to the person I really did owe it to. I gather this happens quite a bit with credit/debit card fraud.

Re:Quaint system...

[claude64]

Yep, they even want their own to be able to show a ID. More fun, we (swiss) just change to a biometric ID system. Reason? The US of A require it post 9/11, so we were told.

Re:Quaint system...

[Hope Thelps]

I'm rather bemused by this btw. I'm guessing you don't mean withdrawal of small sums for spending (you must have cash machines) and I said that if you were talking about seriously large sums in cash then that might be different (but when does that happen?) so I guess you mean bank transfers... but honestly, you have to go into your branch with an id card in order to do that? You can't do it through the cash point and there's no internet or telephone banking? I wouldn't want to have to go into my bank branch just to arrange a transfer.

Or do you mean the bank card for the cash point when you talk about ID? Or maybe your national ID card is used as a bank card? That still means no telephone or internet banking if someone has to somehow see the ID... or does the ID card somehow plug into the telephone network?

Re:Quaint system...

[jhol13]

You are talking about internet when a guy tries to get cash? You've got to be pulling my leg.

My still unanswered question remains: what should the lady/gentleman behind the counter do when a you ask to raise serious sum of cash from account X. Ask you to go to the ATM and do 100 transactions? Go to the internet and ... print the money?

You are hilarious!

Re:Quaint system...

[Hope Thelps]

Well, I think I understand what you're asking about now. As I said in my original comment, if you were withdrawing serious amounts, especially from a branch where you weren't known, then you might be asked for some documentation of identity just because it's such an unusual situation to arise and almost certainly at odds with the normal pattern of transactions on your account but I've never in my life encountered this situation, nor do I think I'm ever likely to so I have a hard time saying for sure.

Re:Quaint system...

[Dilaudid]

Depends how good the national database is I guess. If there's a lot of rows, the update statement might take a while to execute.

Re:Quaint system...

[Dilaudid]

I mean to get in my workplace, to get money out of my bank, there's a picture on my rail pass that I have to show. I have to remember a lot of little bits of plastic, and remember a lot of little bits of metal, to live my life. I work in IT - I thought our job was to try to make things simpler for people? The argument against this seems to be that we fear the state, the company, the man. Strikes me as fud.

Nothing to do with cost..

[malkavian]

It had long been thought by everyone (other than the last government, who just got sent packing) that the ID cards just wouldn't work the way they were meant to (i.e. they don't protect anyone, and are just infringements on privacy and civil liberty, costing the citizenry money they shouldn't have to pay).
The £800 million was supposed to be recouped by the Government by charging to have the card (they were intended to be mandatory eventually with every passport). In other words, another tax to fund a scheme that wouldn't work as advertised and gave the populace no benefit while giving even more personal info to the government.
It'd been a promise since the early days (years back) by every other party to scrap this waste of time and money if they ever came into power. Labour were hoping to have it in place and active (making it much harder to scrap) before they were voted out. Thankfully they failed.

Not about the cards

[Spad]

Scrapping the plan was never really about the cards; most people weren't really bothered about the card itself, it was the vast amount of data that was to be linked to the card via the National Identity Register that was cause for concern - especially as the previous government had a truly shocking record on both data security and large-scale IT projects.

Re:Not about the cards

[dkf]

especially as the previous government had a truly shocking record on both data security and large-scale IT projects.

Don't worry. I fully expect this government to be exactly no better on that front, except for the additional problems caused by scrapping schemes that were actually working and delivering value for money. Right now, they seem to have problems detecting babies amid all the bathwater...

Mostly why I voted for them

[Cloud K]

Granted, the Tories might well screw up the country - but at least we'll have our freedom.

(Hopefully the Liberals will keep them in check anyway, thanks to the coalition. Couldn't be much better really!)

Re:Mostly why I voted for them

[AGMW]

Granted, the Tories might well screw up the country - but at least we'll have our freedom.

(Hopefully the Liberals will keep them in check anyway, thanks to the coalition. Couldn't be much better really!)

The last time the Tories took power from Labour they inherited a monster debt too, and managed to re-pay it and hand over a healthy economy to nuLabour who have sold the family silver (and Gold at the lowest price possible remember!). (nu)Labour have never been able to cut funding to all their left-wing union buddies and so have ALWAYS borrowed heavily when in power, whilst I am confident the Tories (and esp. now they have the Lib Dems as their Jiminy Cricket conscience!) will have the balls to cut back where necessary and actually pull us out of this quagmire of debt nuLabour's Bliar and end of boom and bust Clown left us with!

Obviously, once the economy is fixed we have to be on our metal keeping an watchful eye on them to make sure they don't start screwing the pooch again!

Re:Mostly why I voted for them

[TheRaven64]

The last time the Tories took power from Labour they inherited a monster debt too, and managed to re-pay it and hand over a healthy economy to nuLabour who have sold the family silver

I seem to remember the Tories selling a lot of the family silver (the national rail network, most utilities) before they handed power over. Making up for a short fall in revenue by selling off infrastructure is generally not good fiscal policy. Hopefully the LibDems won't let them do the same this time.

In fact, most of Labour's problem was that they didn't sell the family silver. They just paid for everything they wanted on credit, then left before it was time to pay it back.

Re:Mostly why I voted for them

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, most of Labour's problem was that they didn't sell the family silver. They just paid for everything they wanted on credit, then left before it was time to pay it back.

No, they sold the family gold instead. When it was at a stupidly low price ($282/ounce compared to $900/ounce now). Oh, and they announced it first, just so the market could slump in anticipation.

Re:Mostly why I voted for them

[jabuzz]

That would be the monster debt that Labour inherited from the previous Conservative government that presided over the three day week. Most serious historians blame the mess at the end of the 1970's on the Heaths government and the oil crisis.

I would also point out that the last Labour government presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in the history of the United Kingdom, and even going back further to include the history of Great Britain. Now you might claim that was the legacy of the Major government, but I would point out most western economies had a recession when the dot com bubble burst, but the UK *DID NOT*. Not only that we where last of the western economies to enter the recession this time around. Further it looks like we are coming out of it in better shape than most of the rest of Europe. This is not even the worst defect, it was over 200% of GDP back in 1815, at the moment it is around the 65% mark.

Oh, and in case you think I am a Labour supporter, I am have been a life long member of the Liberal Democrats. It just really peaves me when people spout incorrect rubbish.

Re:Mostly why I voted for them

[AGMW]

That would be the monster debt that Labour inherited from the previous Conservative government that presided over the three day week.

So the Three Day Week was the Tories fault was it? I lived through those times and also remember the blackouts that followed under Labour when the power failed during the Winter of Discontent, both of which were the left wing unions thinking the world owed them a living and the rest of us could just go hang!

Thatcher broke the unions and paid off the debts, and notice nuLabour's Bliar and Clown didn't seem overly keen on restoring their powers because they remember Callaghan trying to curb expenses and the unions flexing their might and were quite happy to keep the status quo thank you very much!

I'd agree that the sell off of British Rail wasn't a good thing, but no goverment is ever all good or indeed all bad, though it's too soon for me to be able to recall any of the good things nuLabour did for us - oh yes, 24 hour drinking.

Link to source, and my favourite quote of the week

[qwerty8ytrewq]

http://www.ips.gov.uk/cps/rde/xchg/ips_live/hs.xsl/1691.htm Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said: "The wasteful, bureaucratic and intrusive ID card scheme represents everything that has been wrong with government in recent years." Boom! heady stuff in the UK, leading the free world. I still think that the Netherlands 'right to anonymity' is the way things should be heading http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=%201447332

Blunkett wants to sue

[dogsolitude_uk]

What made me laugh was the report that David Blunkett (the Labour Home Secretary that gave birth to the scheme) wants to sue the Government for the thirty quid that the card cost him: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/i-might-sue-over-scrapped-id-card-says-blunkett-1985447.html Oh, and it's worth remembering that the Tories wanted to introduce an ID card system (sans database) back in the 90's.

Re:Blunkett wants to sue

[Chrisq]

What made me laugh was the report that David Blunkett (the Labour Home Secretary that gave birth to the scheme) wants to sue the Government for the thirty quid that the card cost him: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/i-might-sue-over-scrapped-id-card-says-blunkett-1985447.html Oh, and it's worth remembering that the Tories wanted to introduce an ID card system (sans database) back in the 90's.

You mean he didn't claim it on expenses! Well I am surprised.

Re:Blunkett wants to sue

[TheRaven64]

Oh, and it's worth remembering that the Tories wanted to introduce an ID card system (sans database) back in the 90's.

An ID card without the database is just a more convenient passport. It's the database that I object to. Amusingly, a couple of weeks after I was born, there was an episode of Yes Minister on television about the creation of a 'Big Brother' database with inadequate privacy safeguards. Plus ca change...

Re:Blunkett wants to sue

[jimicus]

a couple of weeks after I was born, there was an episode of Yes Minister on television about the creation of a 'Big Brother' database with inadequate privacy safeguards. Plus ca change...

You really do have a remarkable memory. The earliest thing I can remember is "Baa Baa Black Sheep".

Re:Blunkett wants to sue

[TheRaven64]

I watched a repeat as a teenager and thought 'this is amazingly topical'. I watched the episode again on DVD over Christmas and thought 'this is still amazingly topical, when was it made?' Turns out, it's as old as me. I wish the BBC would repeat Yes [Prime] Minister more often...

Re:Blunkett wants to sue

[VJ42]

I watched a repeat as a teenager and thought 'this is amazingly topical'. I watched the episode again on DVD over Christmas and thought 'this is still amazingly topical, when was it made?' Turns out, it's as old as me. I wish the BBC would repeat Yes [Prime] Minister more often...

It's regularly on one of the Satellite channels (GOLD, I think), and it remains as topical & insightful as ever.

Re:Blunkett wants to sue

[jimicus]

The DVD box set isn't too pricey.

Re:Blunkett wants to sue

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, this is one of those rare cases wherein it actually makes sense to claim expenses for a pile of shit.

New Labour

[wilsonthecat]

Who would've predicted 20 years ago that a Conservative government is now more liberal than a labour one. What did labour bring the UK in respect to civil liberties?

- Huge amounts of CCTV - one estimate claims the it's the highest in the world
- Useless passports that don't work in most airports
- An illegal war or two
- Sponging off the state is more attractive than working

I voted labour in 1997 and was fairly anti-conservative back then. Since that time something happened to the party (Tony Blair) that has completely transformed them in my view.

Re:New Labour

[Chrisq]

I don't think he's to blame for the useless passports, the USA made biometric passports a requirement of entry.

Re:New Labour

[TheRaven64]

I'm still pretty anti-conservative, which is why I've never voted Labour. The slogan for the 1997 election 'New Labour - Old Tory' has seemed increasingly true every year that they were in power.

Re:New Labour

[dave420]

The vast majority of CCTV cameras in the UK are privately-owned, and are used to protect buildings. They are not run by the police or local authorities.

Re:New Labour

[Anonymous Coward]

Who would've predicted 20 years ago that a Conservative government is now more liberal than a labour one. What did labour bring the UK in respect to civil liberties?

Equalities legislation, women's rights, gay rights...

Does Section 28 ring any bells? Labour did at least manage an openly gay man in the cabinet (pity he was a slimeball).

Re:New Labour

[Haeleth]

- Huge amounts of CCTV - one estimate claims the it's the highest in the world

This is the fault of local councils, not Westminster. Local councils have also been responsible for all the phone-tapping abuse scandals in recent years, by the way. They are the biggest danger to civil liberties in the UK.

If you care about privacy, please get out there and vote in your local elections. Hardly anybody bothers, so it's no surprise local government is crap. Quiz the candidates on their personal intentions, and vote accordingly, not along party lines.

- Useless passports that don't work in most airports

Really? *shrug* I've never had any problems ... I'm more worried about the fact that they were promised to be unforgeable, which appears to have been a lie.

- An illegal war or two

Not sure about the "illegal" bit, but I certainly have to agree we'd have been better off staying out of Iraq.

- Sponging off the state is more attractive than working

Either you're insane, or trolling, or your mind has been tragically poisoned by extremist propaganda. This simply nonsense.

I had personal experience of both employment and unemployment under Labour. I was vastly happier, and significantly better off, even back when I was in a low-paying temporary job. Unemployment was extremely unpleasant and financially very tight. Once I found a real job (with some great help from the job centre staff) there was no looking back.

BTW, what does welfare have to do with civil liberties?

Re:New Labour

[jabuzz]

What illegal war would that be? The second Iraq one? Sorry to inform you but the first one never finished, there was only a cease fire agreement. Absolutely everyone is in agreement that Saddam Hussein was in breach of that cease fire agreement, which means that reopening hostilities is er perfectly legal.

Re:New Labour

[JasterBobaMereel]

The Conservative-Liberal coalition is more liberal than Labour ....

The Conservatives proposed an ID card before labour, introduced widespread CCTV originally, the precursors of a war or two (technically legal ...but they would have done it anyway)

The Lib-Dems were against ID cards, against the war, against CCTV ....

Together they moderate each others extreme policies ....

Re:New Labour

[Geeky]

Who would've predicted 20 years ago that a Conservative government is now more liberal than a labour one.

I would. My gut feel is that the Conservatives are more comfortable being in charge than Labour, and therefore don't feel the need to micromanage the country. You could look at it another way; they don't really care what the plebs are getting up to, so don't feel the need to keep a close eye on them.

Certainly they claim to believe in free market, laissez faire economics, and small government, which would be incompatible with the surveillance state that Labour was building.

Re:New Labour

[Anonymous Coward]

The only difference between a liberal, and a conservative, is age ;-)

Re:New Labour

[Blue Stone]

>Together they moderate each others extreme policies ....

We hope.

I really don't think the Tories are moderating anything, only being temporarily shackled.

It's worth remembering that the Tories vastly outnumber the LibDems and there are a vast army of old-school 'evil' walking-dead tories who I think view Cameron's charm as just they ticket they needed to get their heads round the door and start with bringing back the 'good old days' (of poverty and misery at the bottom and the quaffing of fine wines and cuban cigars at the top).

I suspect they see the LibDems as dupes they can exploit until they piss all over electoral reform and they get back to swinging between the Neo-Stalinist Big-Brother Labour party and their own Devil Take the Hindmost duopoly.

Re:New Labour

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably earn a lot more money than you did then, and want to hang onto it. You might even have a family to provide for now.

The last 3 Labour governments have done the same thing - spend spend spend until the country is a financial wreck. Time before last we wound up having to go to the IMF for a loan. Did you know we once had a 3 day week?

It takes the hated Tories to get the country back in the black, and once we're solvent again the population forget the disaster Labour is and start voting for them again. Repeat.

Re:New Labour

[Eunuchswear]

Absolutely everyone is in agreement that Saddam Hussein was in breach of that cease fire agreement, which means that reopening hostilities is er perfectly legal.

What everyone? Absolutely everyone?

And how was he breaking the ceasefire agreement? Massive stocks of WMDs?

Re:New Labour

[PeterBrett]

It's worth remembering that the Tories vastly outnumber the LibDems and there are a vast army of old-school 'evil' walking-dead tories who I think view Cameron's charm as just they ticket they needed to get their heads round the door and start with bringing back the 'good old days' (of poverty and misery at the bottom and the quaffing of fine wines and cuban cigars at the top).

I suspect they see the LibDems as dupes they can exploit until they piss all over electoral reform and they get back to swinging between the Neo-Stalinist Big-Brother Labour party and their own Devil Take the Hindmost duopoly.

Now, I'm not at all a fan of the Conservative party or their general approach to government, but even so I can see that the parent is clearly a tin-foil-hat-wearing rabid paranoiac. (I may be willing to withdraw this classification if he produces evidence to support his wild allegations).

Although I think he's probably correct in thinking that neither the Tories nor Labour take electoral reform seriously.

Re:New Labour

[Blue Stone]

I'm a Tin-foil Hat wearing paranoiac? Because of my wild allegations?

That the Conservatives care little for the poorest members of society and instead develop laws and try to structure society to give the greatest rewards to those who already have?

How about their utter opposition to Labour's minimum wage legislation? Right now they've just scrapped a multi-million pound scheme to get training and jobs for young people, whilst proposing that the unemployed are subjected to Welfare for Work (scrubbing grafitti of walls and sweeping streets) in return for their benefits, which they've paid Nat Ins for and where they will be working for rates far below the minimum wage (a policy which they've imported from the US and which, I believe, the current US administration has described as ill-thought out and entirely undesirable).

Perhaps it's the 'neo-stalisist' Labour party you were referring to? The party which has implemented and tried to implement the greatest explosion in surveillance of the UK population's behaviour, communications and reading habits in the Western World, all the while removing the assumption of innocence (RIPA), habeas corpus, right to jury trials, etc?

Clearly I'm a "tin-foil-hat-wearing rabid paranoiac". Could I suggest you politely (if such a thing is possible) shove your gracious willingness "to withdraw this classification" up your arse?

As a spiritual supporter of the Pirate Party, I'm a little horrified to see someone holding such a senior position in the party speak in such an impolitic manner, alienating a supporter (myself) and possibly other potential supporters by casually dishing out slanderous comments and insults (albeit ones appended with gracious offers of withdrawal should the slandered party prove themselves worthy!)

I think that the Pirate Party and its cause has more to fear from your support, Peter, if this is any example of it, than from the Tories keeping new parties from power though their opposition to electoral reform.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tact

Re:New Labour

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, today is a bad day to be "anti-CCTV" because we currently have what appears to be a serial killer in custody, thanks to private CCTV footage being reviewed by a private individual (it's no use having cameras if you don't record and review the recordings)

So, OK, CCTV doesn't prevent crime, doesn't detect crime, doesn't help in any way... except there's a murderer in police custody instead of loose in the country murdering people. Time for all the people with dodgy "proof" to go back and take a closer look at their data.

Re:New Labour

[UdoKeir]

CCTV funding was initiated by the previous Conservative government. http://www.notbored.org/england-history.html

1994: central government (the Home Office) publishes CCTV: Looking Out for You. Prime Minister John Major states: "I have no doubt we will hear some protest about a threat to civil liberties. Well, I have no sympathy whatsoever for so-called liberties of that kind." Between 1994 and 1997, the Home Office spends a total of 38 million pounds of CCTV schemes.
1996: government spending on CCTV accounts for more than three-quarters of total crime prevention budget.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes the Conservative Party to slide back to their old ways.

Re:New Labour

[trigpoint]

The Conservatives proposed an ID card before labour

Then they decided it was a stupid idea and didn't do it.

As the summary says

[Conspicuous Coward]

A big of the reason for doing this was cost, but not the only one. The Conservatives have been opposed to this scheme since forever. Middle England Tories tend to get very hot under the collar about ID card schemes for some reason, though they don't seem to have any problem with CCTV, repressive "anti-terrorism" legislation, or any of the dozens of other ways in which British civil liberties are being curtailed.

As to the current Con/Dem government doing anything about these wider abuses, I remain very sceptical. Previous Tory governments have been equally as big on repressive legislation as the last Labour government was. And as everybody knows, politicians are generally loathe to give up any powers unless forced to by the population.

Re:As the summary says

[TheRaven64]

Middle England Tories tend to get very hot under the collar about ID card schemes for some reason, though they don't seem to have any problem with CCTV, repressive "anti-terrorism" legislation, or any of the dozens of other ways in which British civil liberties are being curtailed.

Of course not. The other things that you list only effect the freedoms of the lower classes...

Re:As the summary says

[VJ42]

As to the current Con/Dem government doing anything about these wider abuses, I remain very sceptical. Previous Tory governments have been equally as big on repressive legislation as the last Labour government was. And as everybody knows, politicians are generally loathe to give up any powers unless forced to by the population.

Well, the coalition document promises a "great repeal\freedom bill" and more regulation on CCTV and a review of the libel laws (as a side note, Lord Leicester has just introduced a libel reform bill - http://www.libelreform.org/news - in light of their pledge, I'm hoping that it will get government backing) amongst other things - full text: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8677933.stm

The relevant section for those who don't want to click on the link:

10. Civil liberties
The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour government and roll back state intrusion.
This will include:
A freedom or great repeal bill;
The scrapping of the ID card scheme, the national identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point database;
Outlawing the fingerprinting of children at school without parental permission;
The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency;
Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database;
The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury;
The restoration of rights to non-violent protest;
The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech;
Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation;
Further regulation of CCTV;
Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason;
A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.

Re:As the summary says

[growse]

Isn't most of the CCTV in the UK privately run/owned?

Re:As the summary says

[nanoakron]

Don't be so wilfully ignorant about the political changes going on in your very own country - just search on the BBC for Clegg's opening speech as deputy PM where he specifically sets out powers to be rolled back.

Trying to grip the issues involved...

[Max Romantschuk]

I Finland everyone has a national identification number. Censuses haven't been done in my lifetime, no need. A drivers license, passport, social security card or ID card identifies the citizens with this number. I'm not sure if there's a law that says you have to posess one of the above, it's just something everyone has anyway.

Still there haven't been any major issues. Is this because the Finnish government is simply less corrupt that many others? I don't have a problem with having a number assigned to me. In fact that number ensures I can use all the services my taxes pay for, like working health care.

So am I living in some socialist police state, or is it just a matter of what kind of government implements this kind of a scheme?

Re:Trying to grip the issues involved...

[jcupitt65]

The issue was data protection, not the cards themselves.

UK data protection law (I think this is an EU-wide thing now?) says (among other things) thst you can't use personal information gathered for one purpose for another purpose without the consent of the people involved. This means you can't link databases together. The TV licence database can't be linked to the healthcare database or the police database or ... well, anything really.

Two things help enforce this separation. First, it's illegal (heh), and second, it's impossible to do automatically since all these databases have different ways of establishing identity. There's no 'citizen number' that can be used as a common key for a join, and no way to make one (how can you be sure that the JAMES SMITH of 23 Pootle Gardens in the car license DB is the same JIM SMITH of 23 Potle Gdns in the TV license DB?). One of the purposes of the UK ID card scheme was to introduce a robust citizen ID that could be a common way to index databases (and could reduce costs by having a single identity register).

So the concern was that ID cards were a prelude to the more-or-less complete loss of data protection, at least as far as data held by government went. Moves were already being made last year to grant large data protection exemptions to government.

The ID database would no doubt have crept into the private sector too and be used to identify people for bank accounts and internet services and all that stuff as well. It's easy to imagine a future where data protection no longer really exists at all, where even minor government officials (perhaps under an 'anti-terrorist' banner) could browse almost every piece of information held anywhere on any UK citizen.

Anyway, the loss of the national ID register makes this, at least technically, much more difficult.

Re:Trying to grip the issues involved...

[VJ42]

I Finland everyone has a national identification number. Censuses haven't been done in my lifetime, no need. A drivers license, passport, social security card or ID card identifies the citizens with this number. I'm not sure if there's a law that says you have to posess one of the above, it's just something everyone has anyway.

Still there haven't been any major issues. Is this because the Finnish government is simply less corrupt that many others? I don't have a problem with having a number assigned to me. In fact that number ensures I can use all the services my taxes pay for, like working health care.

So am I living in some socialist police state, or is it just a matter of what kind of government implements this kind of a scheme?

No, we all have a National insurance number in the UK as well, the problem with this scheme wasn't the card but the database behind it; it was going to keep ~50 pieces of personal data on all of us and wanted to charge everyone £30 for the privilege of having one. More info here: http://www.no2id.net/IDSchemes/FAQ/

Re:Trying to grip the issues involved...

[u38cg]

Partly. The Nordic countries in general have exceptional institutions and the lowest levels of corruption in the world. It's not unreasonable that you trust your government to administer such a scheme, because it is in general run for the better. Unlike you, I don't trust my government's ability to not misuse data and in any case I don't really see the problem with the systems we have evolved to deal with ID in Britain.

Re:Trying to grip the issues involved...

[roman_mir]

I Finland everyone has a national identification number. ...
I don't have a problem with having a number assigned to me. ...

I Gattaca this motion.

Re:Trying to grip the issues involved...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I live in spain, they have ID cards, and they don't get it either. It's not about the cards themselves, it's about the single, giant database behind it, and the requirement to have ID. In .uk and the ex-colonies we don't have ID cards or have to carry ID. We are not numbers ;-)

The point is, it is not up to you to prove who your are. You don't have to identify yourself to the government, you don't belong to them, or work for them. You shouldn't have to carry ID to stop the police from locking you up for failing to ID yourself. You are a private citizen, with the emphasis on *private*. As long as you pay your taxes and pay for the services you receive (via social security or whatever) they really have no right to know anything about you.

As you say, in countries where ID cards exist you guys are so used to it you dont realise it's something that is quite repugnant in a supposedly free society.

> I'm not sure if there's a law that says you have to posess one of the above, it's just something everyone has anyway.

Actually, *we* don't. And neither should you.

The onus is on them to identify themselves, and justify themselves, to you, not the other way around.

(And I bet you'll find your ID number/card is compulsory in .fi)

Re:Trying to grip the issues involved...

[petermgreen]

There's no 'citizen number' that can be used as a common key for a join
There is the "national insurance number" which will let them tie together anything tax or benifits related, probablly other stuff too (I can't remember if passport applications ask for the national insurance number or not).

Re:Trying to grip the issues involved...

[azaris]

I Finland everyone has a national identification number.

So am I living in some socialist police state, or is it just a matter of what kind of government implements this kind of a scheme?

Finland is one of those countries that could be turned into a police state if TPTB were more motivated towards evil and if the national spirit was a bit different. Off the top of my head, we've recently had:

• Police raiding people who grow chili peppers in their homes because they bought too much irrigation equipment from the store and looked sufficiently suspicious.
• Foreign-looking people in a popular nightclub getting rounded up until they can produce evidence they are in the country legally.
• Internet-blocking software that randomly blocks you, telling you you're visiting "child pr0n websites" when you for example try to visit a site describing the problems in said filter. And maintaining a site for anonymous reporting of "Internet crime", apart from child abuse material, which is to be submitted to a private advocacy organization (who are accountable to no one) for processing.
• Deanonymizing people and dragging them into court for gossiping about a woman who had an affair with the prime minister.
• Convicting people of blasphemy for pointing out historical facts about Islam that are embarrassing to followers of said faith.

Re:Trying to grip the issues involved...

[horza]

You are living in a socialist police state, but do not notice because you were born into it. For many of us it simply would not be the way we prefer to live. Though it may be perfectly reasonable if you fail to pay a speeding fine promptly that it should be directly deducted from your salary, many here in the west feel the burden of responsibility should like with the individual and not of the state. Though the people are known as awfully nice and polite, Finland is generally regarded as quite a boring place.

Finland has the second lowest immigration level in Europe (wikipedia tells me there are only 55,000 non-native Finnish speakers in the country). You also have a low population that is extremely spread out, lacking large urban centres. The large amount of natural resources, along with a few incredibly successful corporations such as Nokia that provide most of your employment and that you can generously tax, means you can generously spend your way out of many social problems. If you were to allow people from the rest of the world into your country, you may find more people objecting to the level of state control.

Phillip.

Re:Trying to grip the issues involved...

[augustw]

we all have a National insurance number in the UK

But there is no useful, unique, or reliable, mapping between NI number and a identity. NI numbers are given out like confetti, and there are far more of them issued than there are UK residents. It's quite possible for one person to have have several NI numbers.

Re:Trying to grip the issues involved...

[Von Helmet]

The Finnish government is based on proportional representation and coalitions, so my Finnish mother tells me, which I imagine means less scope for governments to sieze tyrannical power without someone to keep them in check. The country is indeed also very socialist, but somehow it works and you don't appear to piss money up the wall on stupid things in the same way that Britain does.

I'd move to Finland in a heartbeat if I could learn the language and persuade my wife and kids, and the political system is one of the reasons.

Re:Trying to grip the issues involved...

[Anonymous Coward]

I Finland everyone has a national identification number. Censuses haven't been done in my lifetime, no need.

Really? No one ever leaves Finland to live elsewhere? Under the Schengen agreement you can just walk across the border without documentation.

How many people "live" in Finland to receive benefits but actually reside somewhere else (ie, somewhere warmer).

Still there haven't been any major issues. Is this because the Finnish government is simply less corrupt that many others?

Maybe. Or that Finland's population is heavily armed.

Re:Trying to grip the issues involved...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Germany we also have a personal ID card which is mandatory and must be renewed about every ten years. It's never been anything but pleasant to have it either:

  * Getting a parcel from the post office that could not be delivered because you were not at home: Show your ID card, and everyone can be reasonably sure the right person gets the parcel.
  * Buying alcohol: If in doubt (i.e. because you look too young to drink) they demand your ID and everythings neat. I strongly agree that it should not bee about the looks but about the actual age.
  * Applying for one position or other: an ID card does away with the abysmal system used in the UK that you and your place of residence is verified with bank statements and bills from utility companys.

And the list goes probably on. There is but one problem in the future: Soon the ID cards will require biometric data (now that is still voluntary). But I do not worry to much about that: In ten years many things change and I recently got my ID card renewed.

Re:Trying to grip the issues involved...

[Anonymous Coward]

Passport applications don't require your NI number: it's used only for tax and benefits. However, the number of your birth certificate probably does tie the NI number and passport number together.

Re:Trying to grip the issues involved...

[trigpoint]

I can't remember if passport applications ask for the national insurance number

It doesn't.

Re:Trying to grip the issues involved...

[horza]

Proportional representation and coalitions can also lead to weak governments and extremists getting in that would not normally be able to. There is no magic answer, each system has its trade-offs. Avoiding tyrants is more to do with a well educated population rather than any particular voting system. As for "somehow it works" that doesn't mean a system in a sparsely populated country of just over 5m with practically no immigrants will scale up to work in any other countries.

Moving to a country because you appreciate the finer points of its political system is a bit odd. The language is supposed to be quite difficult, and during the winter you get nearly no daylight, but on the flip side there is low crime and a good social welfare system. You should try the move. The great thing about being British is that in practically every single country in the world you will find a friendly expat community that will give you support. Worst comes to worst you can always move back, it's not like they take your passport away.

Phillip.

Re:Trying to grip the issues involved...

[claude64]

Must suck if you have reason to distrust you own elected so much. Well i am more and more happy to be swiss. We have those big Database, we had misuse, will have misuse, and have checks against that. Direct democracy, konkordant, pretty save against extremissmus. and just in case, most mens have military training and military weapons at home

They need to make ONE change to Libel law

[jonwil]

All they need to do is to require that the person who is being sued, the person who is doing the suing or both must be a resident of the UK.

That will stop 99% of the "libel shopping" where someone/some company not located in the UK sues someone else/some other company not located in the UK using UK courts just because it happens to be possible to access the alleged libelous content from a computer located in the UK.

It's the database, silly

[spectrokid]

Plenty of very democratic countries (in Scandinavia a.o.) have ID cards. Your "rights" don't get cut down by running around with a silly piece of plastic. If a cop really wants to identify you, how hard can it be? Drivers license, credit card, social insurance. The whole question is how it is USED, and who gets access to the database behind it. Fantastic new system at the library. Borrow a book by simply swiping your ID card past this terminal. Does that mean a cop driving behind me and entering my cars license plate in the cruisers computer can see which books I have checked out lately? ID cards are OK, if they are done in a country where an independent "data-police" makes sure the data does not get abused. And no, that is not a joke, here in Denmark we have exactly that

Re:It's the database, silly

[TheRaven64]

You should check out the plans for exactly what went on the ID card and in the National ID Register before you make comparisons to superficially similar schemes in other countries.

In any case, identity theft makes this whole concept a bad idea. You should never have to prove your identity, you should have to prove that you have the right to be doing whatever you are doing - role based access control. This makes it much harder to steal someone's identity, because you have to steal a large set of mostly-independent credentials. Security experts have been paid to tell the government this for the last five years but, like most other expert consultants employed by the last government, their advice has been completely ignored.

Re:It's the database, silly

[Dominic]

Actually I *do* object to compulsory cards, and I despair of people who don't. Why should anyone be open to arrest simply for not carrying some identification? If a policeman asks me who I am I don't have to tell him unless I have committed a crime, and that's exactly the way it should be. If the rest of Europe wants to be compelled to carry such things then fair enough, but I value my freedom more than that.

Re:It's the database, silly

[FalcDot]

You should never have to prove your identity, you should have to prove that you have the right to be doing whatever you are doing - role based access control.

I fail to see how you could ever achieve this without also proving your identity. Let's say you walk into a high-security area. You produce all the documents needed to prove that Jim Bobbins has the right to be there. Should you be allowed in? No, because you've given no proof at all that you are, in fact, Jim Bobbins.

Re:It's the database, silly

[JasterBobaMereel]

Without an ID card if I am walking down the street, a policeman can stop me (with reasonable suspicion) but cannot ask for my name and address, with an ID card he could ask for that, and get my name address and much much more

That is the problem ....

Re:It's the database, silly

[gay358]

I am not sure about Scandinavian countries, but at least in Finland you don't have to carry any kind of id with you. However, if police suspects that you have done some crime, then you probably have to proof your identity, but even that doesn't require ID card. And if you want to open bank account etc, then you have to have some kind official proof of your identity (at least ID card, passport and relatively new drivers licence are accepted as proof).

And even though you can get an ID card, you don't have to get one if you don't want to. I think that most people I know, have only passport and drivers licence but not the general ID card.

Re:It's the database, silly

[Dominic]

Well that's not so bad. The pro-ID card lobby here were saying that there was no point having ID cards if people didn't have to carry them, and that is a scary point of view. The system in Finland doesn't sound too bad - effectively it just means that you don't have to use your passport as ID. I don't object to an optional ID card, as long as it is truly optional.

Re:It's the database, silly

[drsmithy]

In any case, identity theft makes this whole concept a bad idea. You should never have to prove your identity, you should have to prove that you have the right to be doing whatever you are doing - role based access control.

Authorisation is pointless without authentication.

Re:It's the database, silly

[misexistentialist]

If you aren't allowed to run around without a "silly piece of plastic" obviously quite a bit of freedom has been lost even if you are a dog. Maybe you are well-fed and receive regular veterinary care, but you are still wearing a collar.

Re:It's the database, silly

[rkww]

The whole question is how it is USED, and who gets access to the database behind it
It's not just access to the database, but whether they make that access public. The Danish Railways ticket payment page allows you to 'post tickets to a phone number' - but they show the corresponding full name and address on screen. So you can use their page to look up the address and name associated with any phone number, including contract mobiles.

as well as

[jandersen]

However, the main driver for the change in this policy seems to be the 800-million-pound cost.

That, and the fact that it doesn't really add anything that they don't have already somewhere else, so what's the point?

What is the privacy debate about?

[Dilaudid]

I don't understand the privacy issue. I like the lib dems, I'm glad they are in power, and I think ID cards are expensive - but I don't understand why this is such a massive issue for so many people. I'm not afraid of CCTV and I'm not afraid of ID cards. I can't say I'm an expert in the issues (the wiki article is pretty lame, for example), so please feel free to educate me.

The reason I want ID cards, is not really for ID cards. I want my identity to be electronic, to make real world transactions, authentication etc as easy as internet authentication. On the internet I can access any site and make any payments with just a username and password. In the real world there are a bunch of ass backwards tools - coins, keys, access cards, phone sim cards and other bull. One of the reasons I can't shed this crap is because of "privacy concerns", which I don't worry about. For example, I share almost all of my personal information with google - and I don't worry about them trying to misuse it. I also share all of my wealth with the Bank Of England - I don't worry about them either. Germany also has a system of ID cards, which works.

The reason I want CCTV is because it should make solving crime a lot easier. Combine it with face recognition and you can build a map of where people go and when. Add datamining, and perhaps you can start to track down drug dealers, burglars, rapists, etc. It starts to get very difficult to commit the really nasty crimes that still happen (although not nearly as much as people think)

The best/most frequent arguments against seem to me to be that it would give a corrupt government the power to identify certain elements of society, who could then be, say, put in camps, and it would give police power which they could use to victimise certain groups

From a purely personal standpoint I don't see these things happening in Britain. The progress of Nazi Germany towards the holocaust was a step by step progression, a series of sets of laws defined the Jews as a separate group and began isolating them. Britain has adopted human rights conventions which make this (I think) unconstitutional. The only "warning sign" I heard of with CCTV was that an operator was using a camera to spy on a woman in her bedroom. That's not something which is hard to fix, and it doesn't scare me.

Re:What is the privacy debate about?

[Anonymous Coward]

You really want real-world transactions to be as brokenly insecure as they are online?

Meanwhile:
  Nazi Germany had a series of small steps: define the Jews as a separate group and begin isolating them, slowly building up technologies and methods for doing so afterwards.

  These days we've taken the opposite approach: develop lots of technologies and methods for identifying and tracking people. The moment they decide to get rid of everyone who thinks the way Bob does, everything will be in place to identify, track, and eliminate those people overnight.

Today's laws only scare me a little. Tomorrow's laws should be defended against.

Re:What is the privacy debate about?

[belroth]

I don't understand the privacy issue. I like the lib dems, I'm glad they are in power, and I think ID cards are expensive - but I don't understand why this is such a massive issue for so many people. I'm not afraid of CCTV and I'm not afraid of ID cards. I can't say I'm an expert in the issues (the wiki article is pretty lame, for example), so please feel free to educate me.

I realised your lack of expertise (or thought) from the rest of your post. As for educating you, I'm sure others will help me out here...

The reason I want ID cards, is not really for ID cards. I want my identity to be electronic, to make real world transactions, authentication etc as easy as internet authentication. On the internet I can access any site and make any payments with just a username and password. In the real world there are a bunch of ass backwards tools - coins, keys, access cards, phone sim cards and other bull. One of the reasons I can't shed this crap is because of "privacy concerns", which I don't worry about. For example, I share almost all of my personal information with google - and I don't worry about them trying to misuse it. I also share all of my wealth with the Bank Of England - I don't worry about them either. Germany also has a system of ID cards, which works.

You're doing better than me, I need several userids and passwords - Verrified by Visa and the Mastercard equivalents or paypal spring to mind. And please tell me that you really expect to replace coins and keys with an ID card. These things would soon have been cloned you realise. And how are you going to get mulinational phone companies to use a national ID card as a sim? And how often do you need to worry about your sim card(s)? As you don't have any privacy concerns please tell us you name, d.o.b. address and bank account details - or did you miss Jeremy Clarksons little cock up by doing this? The Bank Of England doesn't have all my wealth, no one institution does. Does Germany also have the Big Brother database that was going to go with these useless cards?

The reason I want CCTV is because it should make solving crime a lot easier. Combine it with face recognition and you can build a map of where people go and when. Add datamining, and perhaps you can start to track down drug dealers, burglars, rapists, etc. It starts to get very difficult to commit the really nasty crimes that still happen (although not nearly as much as people think)

They have a miserably small effect on crime solving at present, and I'm sure the rest would have been great for the Staasi. You should consider the possible unintended conseauences as well as the stated aim. The fact that it is possible to identify how anybody voted in UK General Elections also makes me unhappy, or did you not realise that the ballot papers are traceable?

The best/most frequent arguments against seem to me to be that it would give a corrupt government the power to identify certain elements of society, who could then be, say, put in camps, and it would give police power which they could use to victimise certain groups

The trouble is these things normally tend to happen, laws get applied more loosely than may have been intended: 'sus', 'stop and search'. and the unlwaful harrasing of phorographers (stretching some 'anti-terror' legislation). Someone one descibed Jack Straw (as Home Secretary) as too right wing for Mrs Thatchers government. Another oft-quoted saying is that Labour do what the Police tell them and the Tories tell the Police what to do. Look at the number of laws passed in the last 13 years which can result in imprisonment and read the 'Great Repeal' bill just announced - and be grateful we know have a Con/Dem coalition. I hope they are looking at Detention Orders too.

From a purely personal standpoint I don't see these things happening in Britain. The progress of Nazi Germany towards the holocaust was

Re:What is the privacy debate about?

[ledow]

There are many angles - first, from a "necessity" point of view: The government don't need to know who I am any more than they already do. This negates the need for anything else, and all laws in place require me to identify myself when such things are in doubt. There is nobody in the UK that isn't "identified" in some way, even if that's through lack of identification meaning they shouldn't be here (i.e. no valid ID = probable illegal immigrant). No need = no point. I can give Facebook lots of information but my point is that I don't NEED to. That's the difference. However, the government I *need* to give certain information and having that held in insecure electronic formats is no assurance. Millions of peoples data has been "misplaced" by the UK authorities already - including the benefit details of some millions of tax credits claimants. Not a big deal? That's your name, age, address, living arrangements, indication of income, maybe even listings of children you have from other relationships. Your partner might know about them but the rest of the world doesn't need to. Consider if you were on a witness protection program, it might be possible that such PUBLIC leaked information could be severely damaging. The UK *cannot* hold those records securely - they is really zero security on any government IT system which is why the NHS system is constantly being overhauled/scrapped/renewed/ignored too.

Existing NHS records were sent off to be electronically converted. They came back with something like a 30% error rate, and people who were dying of cancer were confused with people who'd never needed a doctor in their life. The paper systems have been there for 50-60 years without any major large-scale problems of theft / errors / copying - just isolated cases. The electronic systems haven't managed six months without some sort of controversy / mistake / mass information leak.

The Data Protection Act in the UK recognises this - you can hold almost any personal information on whoever you want, so long as it's not computerised. The instant you build an electronic system of that data, you need to register and abide by the laws because the potential for misuse is extraordinarily increased. About the only "successful" electronic database in the UK is the DVLA, and even then they have leaks and problems all the time. Now the government has decreed that anyone can access that database, on payment of a fee and specification of a purpose, so you have people tracking their ex's and fining people who parked for a second on public property (which isn't actually an offence, and would need to be proved in a court of law before it could ever become any like trespass and the chances of conviction are about 1 in a thousand on trespass charges - it has be to wilfully destructive or intrusive, not pulling over into a field entrance to check your tyres). There is no court system involved - you just subject a registration plate and a fee and you can be given the details of the owner. Misuse is probably rife but nobody can really track it at the moment - trace your ex because she ran off with another man, scratch the car of the person who cut you up in traffic last week, they are all now possible where before you would have needed a court order with an explicit reason to look up such information.

Then you have the problem of government overstepping its powers. This is common, frequent, and dangerous even today. When the country runs on electronic ID, the government *control* your life, from issuance of credit, to getting a job, to claiming benefit, to even being allowed to stay in the country. It may not be deliberate, but if your life exists only in a computer memory run by a government IT contractor, it's easy to destroy your life too.

It's easy to just delete an electronic record, or have it corrupted, or cross-linker, so we have to keep the paper records around to prove that you are actually who you say you are. Anyone could create a fake "birth" on an electronic system, it makes it a million

Re:What is the privacy debate about?

[internewt]

The fact that it is possible to identify how anybody voted in UK General Elections also makes me unhappy, or did you not realise that the ballot papers are traceable?

I think this is only possible so that it is also possible to detect and investigate voting fraud.

IIRC, the ballot paper's number is recorded with the voter's name, but the ballots themselves and audit info are kept separate, and locked up, or at least in the hands of the returning officer (or some other electoral official). There may only be a couple of steps preventing voting fraud, but it could well be enough.

If we had a truly anonymous voting system, how would we detect fraud? I'm not saying the system we have, where if the wrong party came to power, the opposition could (in theory) be rounded up, isn't flawed, but some kind of trade off needs to be found. The only way to have non-anonymous voting and for it to be fair is to have good audit trails, and accountability held by separate individuals. I think this is the system we have, or at least that is what it's meant to be.

Re:What is the privacy debate about?

[samjam]

A note about verified-by-visa:

It's not there to help you it's there to help them (the Credit Card Companies). It helps them by reducing chance of fraud and blaming any fraud that does occur on you.

I called my credit card company and opted out.

And so I never see the verified-by-visa or mastercard equivalent when I purchase online.

Re:What is the privacy debate about?

[belroth]

I think we may have the least worst option really. I just think everybody should be aware that their vote is in theory traceable.
<JOKE> You could have used the ID card to prevent fraud... </JOKE>

The real worry would have been elecronic voting - use your ID card to vote and have it recorded in a database for future reference: "Sorry officer, what did I do wrong? Well, yes I did vote Green when I was 20....."

Re:What is the privacy debate about?

[PeterBrett]

I think we may have the least worst option really. I just think everybody should be aware that their vote is in theory traceable.

Note that at the moment only the original, hand-written, hard copy of the polling station register is kept -- no copies are ever made -- and that the register and ballot papers are securely destroyed after a set period (IIRC 3 years).

Re:What is the privacy debate about?

[belroth]

I realise it's not for my benefit. The first time it popped up I thought it was a phishing site, but they're not normally as amateur. It wanted me to phone up and give my card details over a number I'd never heard of. An the Master card one is as inept. I rarely use either of those cards so it's not a problem.
I have also considered the use of the disposable cards you can buy - they're pre-paid but act like a normal card. Some companies used to allow you to create one-shot 'cards' so you only deal with a known institution.

Mostly I only buy from a few sites or small amounts via paypal (which I haven't confirmed/whatever so the exposure is low)

Re:What is the privacy debate about?

[Dilaudid]

It won't be unconstitutional without a written constitution - so you're not a lawyer then?

Re:What is the privacy debate about?

[Dilaudid]

Ok I read all of your post, so I really appreciate why I should try to keep this brief. 1) IDs would be cloned. So they are exactly as secure as existing ID then. Why not use a single method for more convenience. 2) Sousveillence - please don't bother me with wacky comedy concepts. 3) Who watches the watchers? The courts. Labour gave them massive powers of oversight of (only) government departments when they brought the human rights legislation into law. Tories, of course, opposed it tooth and nail. 4) Name, d.o.b. etc - so banks use insecure methods of authentication, which can easily be cracked with just facebook access - and you're scared of the government having access to this info? Almost like worrying about the id on a voting slip and then telling all of slashdot you vote tory!
Your whole argument appears to boil down to "fear authority", which since people in authority (even police) are just ordinary people, means "fear others". I don't understand this fear of authority. I rarely ever regret trusting people too much. Except on ebay.

DING DONG

[Anonymous Coward]

THE WITCH IS DEAD! =D

How naive.

[Anonymous Coward]

When Augusto Pinochet came to power, one of the first things he did was to round up the offices of the Socialist party and get their membership records.

With that list they just went, knocked to the doors of their political oponents, and dealt with them with the brutality characteristic of right wing extremists (when Pinochet died Chilean youngsters saluted the departed leader with Neo Nazi salutes, how ironic that Maggie Thatcher was such a good friend of this bastard).

Europeans, having experienced totalitarian regimes in the last 100 years ( Stalinists in most of Eastern Europe, Fascists in Central and Mediterranean Europe, Ultra Nationalists in the Balkans) one would have thought would be the most reacious people in the world to any form of such political control (which is what it is: no ID, no services. Neat.)

With all its faults, the UK, one of the few countries that escaped totalitarian regimes in recent history, has a sizeable amount of the population with whom this kind of policy seats uncomfortably, even if that means a bit less conveneince during dealing with official business of any kind.

It was only the prominence of Labour (many of its ministers former Left Wing nutcases, i.e. proponents of an overpowering overview of the state of everything) what permitted the idea of ID cards being a good idea. One or two of them actually became closely associated with companies with interest in promoting ID cards after they left office in disgrace.

There is no reason you should not have a number to access your services, the problem is it being unique and the government, not you, having control about who can access the personal information associated to it.

 

Re:How naive.

[Cantus]

You see, all Pinochet needed were the party's memebership records, as you say. Do you think parties in the UK don't keep membership records with addresses and phones numbers? A Brit Pinochet wouldn't need a National ID card database to exterminate the opposition.

Therefore, your argument about totalitarian regimes is weak and pure paranoia.

Re:How naive.

[Anonymous Coward]

Augusto Pinochet is a red herring. The problem wasn't with ID cards, it was with membership records. I'm pretty sure most parties keeps records of their members with enough details to identify them regardless of ID cards.

Re:How naive.

[cbraescu1]

dealt with them with the brutality characteristic of right wing extremists

I hate to bring you back to reality, but Pinochet was dealing with the *extreme* left of Salvador Allende, a guy that was more or less a mix between Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, with a bit of Soviet seasoning, too.

The alternative to the very brutal Pinochet early ears was a very murderous Allende dictatorship.

Re:How naive.

[Anonymous Coward]

how ironic that Maggie Thatcher was such a good friend of this bastard).

I don't see any irony about one fascist dictator being friends with someone who was doing their best to be one.

Okay, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a legal immigrant, and I'd much rather have a single ID card than all of:
  - Passport
  - Visa
  - Driver's License
  - NIN Card
  - NHS Card (I don't even know what this is, but not having it is a problem, apparently)
  - Probably other things

Re:Okay, but...

[PeterBrett]

NHS Card (I don't even know what this is, but not having it is a problem, apparently)

It's a card (about A6 format IIRC) which shows your name and address, your doctor's name and address, and your NHS number. The only reason for having the card is as a record for you to have of your NHS number.

The NHS number is used as the index number for your medical records, so if you change doctor, it's easier for your records to follow you. The NHS number is *only* used for identifying your medical records (just like your National Insurance number should *only* be used for identifying your tax records). One use for the NHS card is in changing doctor -- your new doctor will fill in a form on the card and mail it to your old doctor to request your records, IIRC, and then you'll be issued with a new card with your new doctor's details.

You don't need an NHS number to get care. If you lose your NHS card, it's no big deal, because your local Primary Care Trust can look up your NHS number for you. I don't know who told you that not having an NHS card was a problem, but they were misinformed.

Similarly, I have no idea where my NI number card is -- I haven't seen it since I was a teenager. If I need to fill out my NI number on paperwork, I just find a P45 or P60 from a previous job and copy it from there...

I am currently carrying the following cards in my wallet (total 27 items):

• Driving licence
• University card (used for library & building access)
• University alumni society card
• Professional institution membership cards (x2)
• Sports club membership card (x6)
• Public library cards (3x, for different counties)
• Prepaid Oyster card (contactless payment system used for public transport in London)
• Video rental card
• Bank account cards, Visa etc (x4)
• A couple of other things

And you know what? It may seem silly, but I prefer it that way to having one single piece of plastic that if I lost I'd lose my life with it.

Getting rid of the CARDS not the DATABASE

[evilandi]

Hold yer hallelujahs, people. They're getting rid of the ID *CARDS*, not the database. The biometric database will continue as part of the requirements for passports. These biometric passports are required for travel to a number of countries including the US (the irony has not passed me by; US freedom-nuts, wittering on about how restrictive the UK is, when our passports basically only contain biometric data in order to meet US visa-waiver requirements). The biometric passport database will continue to share data (as it already does) with the relatively new photo driving licences (for example, if you want to get a photo driving licence online, you don't need to submit a photo if you already have a passport, it just connects to the passport database and retrieves your existing passport photo).

The only things being scrapped here are some bits of plastic and a few off-the-shelf smartcard readers. The data is still very much in the cloud, you just won't be able to touch it anymore.

Re:Getting rid of the CARDS not the DATABASE

[Alioth]

The ID card database had more data than that though, it was also going to include things like previous addresses - so less an identity database, more a residence tracking database.

The other problem with ID cards is unlike passports they were to eventually become mandatory. The outgoing government calling them "self financing" is highly disingenuous - or does the "finance fairy" come down and magic some money? No. If it's compulsory then it's really just another new tax since we'd all be forced to pony up whether we like it or not. It's also likely the estimate for how much it would cost was much lower than the real, final cost - as is almost always the case with government IT projects (they are often deliberately low-balled to get them approved - many government IT projects would probably be rejected out of hand if the real cost was stated up front).

Of course the next likely development would not just be compulsory purchase of ID cards, but that they would become compulsory to carry at all times like in some European countries, with effective police powers to ask for "papers please". At this point absent-mindedness becomes an offence - forget your ID card, get fined. And no, driving licenses aren't the same - in Britain you don't have to carry your driving license when driving (if you get stopped and don't have it, you get a notice to show your documents within a reasonable time period).

Re:Getting rid of the CARDS not the DATABASE

[augustw]

They're getting rid of the ID *CARDS*, not the database.

Yes, they are; the database will be deleted.

The coalition programme says "We will scrap the ID card scheme,
the National Identity register and the ContactPoint database, and halt the next generation of biometric passports." (http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2010/05/~/media/Files/Downloadable%20Files/coalition-programme.ashx?dl=true)

The BBC reports: "Once the cards are illegal, the National Identity Register will be "physically destroyed", say ministers." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8707355.stm)

Re:Getting rid of the CARDS not the DATABASE

[evilandi]

Um... the passport database already includes your previous addresses. You have to fill them out on your passport application.

The card was always a straw man. The idea that the data could only be accessed if you carried your card was always b*ll*cks. If you have good-enough biometrics you don't need the card; your fingerprint, the ratio of distance between your eyes and your nose, your DNA, will all do just as well. The cards were realistically only ever an index key that came with the added inconvenience of being capable of getting lost.

If the data is indexed on biometrics, then the data will be accessible whether you're carrying a card or not. Unless you're suggesting some way that I can walk around without exposing my biometrics? Bubble boy in a burqua?

I've often wondered about the actual adherence rate for countries with supposedly mandatory carry-at-all-times ID schemes. Do they sell special pouches for going swimming or sunbathing on the beach? Some kind of hamster-like cheek pouch? My own personal, erm... "research"... on French beaches strongly suggests that large numbers of French females do not carry their ID with them at all times like the law supposedly states. Quite possibly this is also true for the males, although that wasn't the focus of my research.

Re:Getting rid of the CARDS not the DATABASE

[evilandi]

What they're saying, and where they're putting their money, are two quite different things.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/27/id_card_contracts/

Re:Getting rid of the CARDS not the DATABASE

[belroth]

From the bbc: "Once the cards are illegal, the National Identity Register will be "physically destroyed", say ministers."

So they are getting rid of the database too, which is the more important thing, but the combination of card and database was the really bad news.

Re:Getting rid of the CARDS not the DATABASE

[belroth]

Yes, they're having a database of foreign nationals but not of UK residents/citizens/subjetcs. The National Identity Register is going.

Very sad

[Cantus]

I don't really understand all the paranoia against the government over a National ID card. The government already knows who you are. The card is just there to make everyone's life easier.

I can't even believe you people have to resort to showing electricity bills to prove your identity in Britain. WTF.

No wonder so many folks had problems voting in the last election.

Jesus, even some developing countries are more organized than Britain, without becoming police states.

You people have an unnatural, unhealthy distrust for government.

This is crazy.

Re:Very sad

[Spad]

You people have an natural, healthy distrust for government.

FTFY. Our governments over the last 25 years in the UK have shown repeatedly, not that they are malicious and intend to abuse all the data that they would collect on us as part of the national ID card scheme, but that they are *incompetent* and cannot be trusted not to lose, misuse, alter, sell or otherwise screw up the data that they would collect on us.

The card is just there to make everyone's life easier.

This is bullshit and will always be bullshit. The UK national ID card scheme was all about Fighting Terrorism, except when it was all about stopping Organised Crime, apart from that time it was all about Improving Access To Services, although there was that bit when it all about stopping Illegal Immigration and I seem to remember that for a while it was definitely all about helping to prevent Identity Theft, honest.

Re:Very sad

[Anonymous Coward]

...an unnatural, unhealthy distrust for government.

No such thing.. but I think you're trolling, so I'll leave it at that..

Re:Very sad

[vrai]

The UK national ID card scheme was all about Fighting Terrorism

I always found this strange as we'd been fighting terrorism for some decades before the ID card scheme was started and had managed without them. This is especially impressive as for most of those decades the terrorists were well funded, well organised, well equipped professionals that came within a hair's breadth of killing the Prime Minister and cabinet. Modern day "terrorists" are nothing but a random assortment of malcontent God botherers and yet they will, apparently, destroy British society if not tamed with the leash of identity cards.

Re:Very sad

[trigpoint]

No wonder so many folks had problems voting in the last election.

I don't believe the system is broken, there must have been 10s of 1000s of polling stations operating on the day, and in all but a tiny handfull they worked perfectly. I haven't seen any enquiry results as yet, not sure if any have been published, but my understanding is: Running out of ballot papers, there is no excuse for this, just order as many as you have voters, plus a enough spares. The others seemed to be large numbers of students, turning up in the last hour without polling cards. Polling cards have a number which allows the polling station staff to find you on the register quickly. Whilst not needing the card, it takes time to ask for name and address, check spelling etc. If large numbers do not bring their cards it, is easy to see how delays occur. It is beyond me why so many did not bother to take their cards.

Finally Slashdot.

[Xest]

You post a story about the new British regime.

For those unaware, Britain has had a new coalition government for the past 3 weeks, and it's been active in stating it's goals of rolling back many of the civil liberties infringements in the UK that came about under Labour.

There have been countless stories on Firehose, but positive stories about a final change of state of British politics that has massive meaningful benefits for improving the state of civil liberties here in the UK are apparently not newsworthy, it's better to stick to negative stories about how the world is going to end. Apparently.

It's a shame because Slashdot could use some positive news on the civil liberties front, and there has been a lot from the UK this last few weeks. To sum most of them up, the stated intentions of the new coalition government are:

- The removal of the DNA database
- The removal of the national identity register
- Cancelling the go ahead of enhanced biometric passports
- Cancellation of the contact point database
- Removal of restrictions on right to peaceful protest
- Stronger restrictions on the use of CCTV cameras
- Ban fingerprinting of children in school without parental permission
- Increase the scope of the freedom of information act
- Remove innocent people from the DNA database
- Restore trial by jury as a right in all criminal cases
- Review and hopefully rework libel laws to prevent stifling of freedom of speech
- Introduce more legislation to prevent abuse of anti-terror laws
- Ban interception and storage of e-mail and other digital communications without good reason (i.e. a specific warrant)

Now, you wouldn't realise any of this if you simply read Slashdot of course, but there you go. Hopefully the UK is seeing a bit of a turnaround now that totalitarian Labour have been kicked out, and for the first time in about a hundred years, the Liberals are part of government again.

It's not all perfect of course, no one can like everything their government does. The new coalition has also said that they will allow citizens to put forward bills for repeal, whether the digital economy act can be included is yet to be seen, but right now, the things there are cold hard plans for are extremely promising and look set to get the go ahead.

It's just a shame Slashdot didn't post the full list of changes when Nick Clegg the new deputy PM did a speech on restoring civil liberties in the UK last week when there were like 20 firehose submissions on it, but oh well, I suppose we should be glad now that at least the fact a tiny miniscule portion of the goings on over here has been posted, albeit a week late.

Re:Finally Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

My jaw dropped when I read the coalition agreement; aside from the offensive traditional social conservatism of tax breaks for married couples it's a manifesto I can actually get behind. A week later, Ian Hislop mentioned it, as a kind of open question to the audience on HIGNFY. The silence was deafening; I'd be surprised if anyone in the audience had bothered reading it.

As they say, the devil is in the details and perhaps I'm being uncharitable to the audience of a current affairs and news quiz. Maybe everyone in the audience had read the coalition agreement, they're simply so jaded that they expect the worst anyway.

As you mention, some of the things the coalition governement are doing make me uneasy. Continuing with the privatisation of Royal Mail (rather than abolishing 2nd class post and increasing the price of stamps) is one such misstep. Taking the first steps is privatising education another. Then there's Vince Cable's hobby horse of privatising our roads -- even Milton Friedman wasn't that stupid!

Re:Finally Slashdot.

[belroth]

I wouldn't give Clegg and the Lib Dems all the credit - this lot was in the Conservative manifesto and would have happened if Cameron had won a majority. The only people against all of your list (I think, not sure about some of the smaller parties) were Labour.

Re:Finally Slashdot.

[Xest]

One of my concerns so far has been their push for bringing back fox hunting with packs of dogs- it's not that I have a problem with hunting foxes per se, I do however when it's done in a way that can only appeal to people with a disturbing blood lust that in any other walk of life would be seen as a sure sign of a pretty sick individual. Primarily though, it's the fact that it's something that benefits such a tiny elite of the population yet wastes so much legislative time that it seems that they are still very much focussing on simply looking after the elite at the expense of grossly more important things that benefit pretty much everyone or at least large swathes of the population. There's just so much more important stuff to deal with it just shouldn't even be on the agenda anymore.

I find it sad that we're only getting a referendum for alternative vote which is really no better than the current system, and can't figure out how the Tories have managed to convince themselves that if you're going to have a referendum on electoral change then you shouldn't just go all the way and let the population decide which one is best instead of just lumping them with a shitty option.

I am a little concerned that the Digital Economy Act has gone entirely unmentioned too, despite Clegg's opposition to it pre-election stating he wanted to see it repealed and restarted.

So like you, there are a few things that bug me for sure. But again, regarding civil liberties? I just wasn't expecting that, and right now, their civil liberties stance alone puts them absolutely miles ahead of Labour, regardless of their other current plans I dislike.

Re:Finally Slashdot.

[Xest]

I only really mentioned Clegg because he was the one who did the official coalition government speech on civil liberties last week.

That said, not all of this was in the Tory manifesto, a fair bit of it, and some of the most important parts in fact are there at the behest of the Lib Dems, the Tories for example wanted to ditch ID cards, but maintain the National Identity Register.

I believe the libel law rework plans are a Lib Dem policy too that the Tories weren't planning for.

Re:Finally Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

You still believe in Santa Claus, don't you?

Re:Finally Slashdot.

[Xest]

I'll be impressed if even two or three of those things happen.

As the ID cards, national identity register and biometric passports are the first things on the new governments schedule such that the vote on it now even has it's date set for parliamentary proceedings over that, and a large majority of MPs support their cancellation I think there's good reason to be optimistic over at least a bit of it right now.

That's still the first step to improving, rather than further destroying civil liberties in the UK in 13 years- it's hard not to be a bit excited about it.

Re:Finally Slashdot.

[dogsolitude_uk]

Most of this was also in the Lib-Dem-drafted Freedom Bill: http://freedom.libdems.org.uk/

* Scrap ID cards for everyone, including foreign nationals.

* Ensure that there are no restrictions in the right to trial by jury for serious offences including fraud.

* Restore the right to protest in Parliament Square, at the heart of our democracy.

* Abolish the flawed control orders regime.

* Renegotiate the unfair extradition treaty with the United States.

* Restore the right to public assembly for more than two people.

* Scrap the ContactPoint database of all children in Britain.

* Strengthen freedom of information by giving greater powers to the Information Commissioner and reducing exemptions.

* Stop criminalising trespass.

* Restore the public interest defence for whistleblowers.

* Prevent allegations of ‘bad character’ from being used in court.

* Restore the right to silence when accused in court.

* Prevent bailiffs from using force.

* Restrict the use of surveillance powers to the investigation of serious crimes and stop councils snooping.

* Restore the principle of double jeopardy in UK law.

* Remove innocent people from the DNA database.

* Reduce the maximum period of pre-charge detention to 14 days.

* Scrap the ministerial veto which allowed the Government to block the release of Cabinet minutes relating to the Iraq war.

* Require explicit parental consent for biometric information to be taken from children.

* Regulate CCTV following a Royal Commission on cameras.

Re:Finally Slashdot.

[belroth]

I'm even happier at the coalition then. I'm not really a fan of coalitions but this one may work - keeping the looney LibDem Left and the ranting Conservative right under control and working on a sane(?) middle ground. Laws is seriously impressive, as are Gove, IDS and Hague. I'm not too sure about Clegg/Cameron but if they leave the others to do their jobs that's probably enough. Just ditch Cable asap.

Re:Finally Slashdot.

[shutdown -p now]

One reason why it is important to all of us, and not just the Brits, is that it shows that democracy can work, even in a country with a screwed-up electoral system. If this was done in UK, it can also be done in US and elsewhere. So, next time it comes to that, get off your lazy ass and vote, rather than bitching about how your vote totally doesn't count.

How do IDs infringe on privacy?

[walterbyrd]

Assuming I am not a terrorist, criminal, tax evader, or illegal alien, how does an ID infringe on my privacy? I hear this all the time, but it has never made any sense to me. An ID just proves that I am who I say I am, how does that directly lead to spy cameras in my bedroom, and an rfid chip in my shoe?

OMFG! The government will know where I live! But, if I file taxes, doesn't the government already know that? Is it not easy for the government to know when travel out of the country?

Disclosure: I am an American, but we have discussed the idea of national ID as well. Also, I hold a security clearance, so the government knows all about me: blood type, financial records, work history, medical records, and so on. Frankly the government knowing that stuff does not make the first bit of difference in my day to day life.

Re:How do IDs infringe on privacy?

[Spad]

An ID card doesn't. An ID card that's linked to a database with a unique ID that's used to tie it to information in other databases across various governmental and non-governmental departments and organizations, that infringes on privacy.

Re:How do IDs infringe on privacy?

[walterbyrd]

An ID card doesn't. An ID card that's linked to a database with a unique ID that's used to tie it to information in other databases across various governmental and non-governmental departments and organizations, that infringes on privacy.

How so? So what if you're in a database. I am already in several databases, and it makes no difference to me. What exactly are you scared of those governments, or whatever, doing with your information?

Re:How do IDs infringe on privacy?

[Ant P.]

OMFG! The government will know where I live!

And so will whoever "finds" the right laptop at the right time.

Re:How do IDs infringe on privacy?

[Eunuchswear]

I am already in several databases, and it makes no difference to me.

Now imagine that those "several" databases are replaced by one database.

Re:How do IDs infringe on privacy?

[fustakrakich]

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.. right?

Re:How do IDs infringe on privacy?

[walterbyrd]

Now imagine that those "several" databases are replaced by one database.

Which, yet again, begs the question: so friggin' what?

What will the government, or anybody else, know about me that they do not already know, or can not easily find out?

Here in the USA, illegal immigrants usually have to use fake IDs to get jobs, or social services. These fake IDs are far too easy to obtain. The same illegals often share social security numbers. I know for a fact that there are more than forty "Jose Gonzales" sharing the same social security number.

In a complex society, such as the US or UK, meaning ID is critically important; and in the US we don't have it. No wonder identity theft is such a huge problem.

Re:How do IDs infringe on privacy?

[walterbyrd]

So how is this different from the present situation?

Assuming every IRS worker goes around with a laptop that contain a complete database of every US taxpayer, would such a lost laptop have my information anyway?

Besides, are we concerning the issue of data security, with privacy? Just so I understand the issue, if there was no issue with unauthorized accessed to government databases, would there still be an issue with privacy? If so, what is the issue?

Re:How do IDs infringe on privacy?

[dogsolitude_uk]

One thing that often gets missed is the fact that the ID Cards legislation allows for:

- fines for not keeping the database up to date with your details, roughly £1000 un UK money

- logging details of every occasion that the ID card is used to access the National Identity Register, e.g. id you get carded at a political event, open a bank account, details get logged.

The other issue was the spiralling costs of the system, and yet another issue was the complete ineptitude of the UK Government in keeping the data safe and secure. They have already lost personal details (names, addresses, details of children etc) of 2.5 million benefits claimants on DVD-roms they left on a train.

In addition to all these issues, was the simple fact that the cards provided almost no benefit at all to the average citizen. Kidz wanting to buy Booze already have ID cards that cost far less via private schemes (and that don't keep details of every transaction on a database either).

It really is a hugely extensive population tracking device, completely at odds with the ideas of privacy and freedom, and with little real benefit for anyone except a bloated State that wants to extend its tendrils into every aspect of our lives.

If you still really think that this massive Orwellian/Kafkaesque system is a good idea, then check out Terry Gilliam's excellent film 'Brazil'... :)

Re:How do IDs infringe on privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except in the US a state driving license (specified by many government agencies as the 'primary form of ID') is not good enough to prove eligibility for employment as legal non-residents (such as H1B or L1 works) have these. As you say, fake IDs can be obtained so their use as a mechanism to prove eligibility is further harmed. So why provide more information to the government in the first place? Do you think the government is incapable of doing harm to you? Are you saying there is no limit to the information you'd like the government to hold? What about your realtime location, or your recent purchases? What about if all that information they hold is easily accessible to all government agencies without limitations? Did you declare those out of state purchases on your state return and pay the sales tax? How would you like to receive an automated bill for your last 3 years worth of tax evasions? The less information the government has on us all the better. The US already has, in effect, a national ID. A lot of the state driving license databases are linked for law enforcement purposes and it is a requirement to carry your license while driving which most of us do everyday.

That's a big gorilla

[mooingyak]

However, the main driver for the change in this policy seems to be the 800-million-pound

Gorilla? Please be gorilla. That's a big gorilla.

cost.

Disappointing close to that sentence.

Arizona

[Comboman]

Some states require it also ... but only if you look Mexican.

Re:Arizona

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of drinking the kool-aid try actually reading the frickin' law--the relevant part is only two (2) pages long (the rest deals with stuff such as not allowing you to block a major highway while hiring illegals and other similar items). It expressly prohibits requiring you to supply ID if you look mexican.

A Great day for the UK

[gink1]

There were rumors that the UK would be relaxing a number of their tight "War on Terror" type measures.
And now they are getting rid of a major intrusive program!

It's a great day for Britain, especially if this indicates a trend. Before this they were shedding liberties at a high rate!

Now if the US could only follow their lead!

The dangers of bad Home Secretaries

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

For all the problems of Blair and Brown, I think a lot of the lasting damage done by the Labour administration was caused by a succession of bad Home Secretaries, each more authoritarian, more fear-mongering, and less connected with real life than the last, whose distorted world views could direct affect everyone. Smith followed Straw, Blunkett, Clarke, and Reid, remember.

My view

[Uranium-238]

Whilst I didn't agree with the cards being biometric, because that's just another government database for some nonbody pencil pusher to lose data from, I do support the idea of ID cards themselves. I'm a british citizen by birth only and have liver around the world. I'm currently at university in the UK but I live in Belgium out of term time where there are ID cards and until recently (last year I think) I needed to have one. It used to be merely a piece of card with much the same info as your passport, but more portable. I mean yes now the new cards are "e" cards, essentially biometric (not quite) and I don't even need one, but it makes things so much easier for me that I decided I might aswell get it. My problem in the UK is that because I don't have a driver's liscense (yet) means that my only form of ID is my passport, which I don't really want to carry around on me the whole time incase I lose it/it gets stolen which is why I think ID cards would be a great idea but only if they're not biometric as the government already has enough data on us (and far too much to leave lying around on trains.....)

Re:My view

[dogsolitude_uk]

It's not just the Biometrics, it was the database behind it (the National Identity Register) that would log every use of the cards/access to the database e.g. at borders, checkpoints, when opening a bank account, getting into a club, being carded by the police at a political meeting etc... Oh, and fines of £1000 if you don't keep your records up to date.

In other words: you're tagged for life, citizen.

Re:My view

[Uranium-238]

Yes I know they were planning on a database and I believe I mentioned it in my post, but yes there were very many stupid things coming with the actual cards.

Re:My view

[dogsolitude_uk]

You've probably been through the various options already, but if you need ID to get served in bars and pubs, and get into clubs, have a look at these guys if you haven't done so already:

http://www.citizencard.com/index.php

http://www.validateuk.co.uk/

It may also be useful to apply for a provisional drivers license too if you haven't done so. I'm ancient, and for various reasons don't drive, but my provisional license is reasonably useful.

Hope that helps anyway!

Re:My view

[Uranium-238]

Cheers for the links! Unfortunately I can't apply for a UK provisional liscence since you have to provide your UK address(es) for the past 2 years or such. Over the summer I intend to try and get my liscence back in Belgium.

Its only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not really a question on if, and civil rights, privacy etc anymore, just when.

This will happen sooner or later, and I can't wait for it to happen in the US. In 20 years I could see a biometric implant thats readable from space, knowing your exact location. Illegal immigrants will find it impossible to continue to break the US laws, and there will be nowhere to hide.

Will be interesting to see if this really dies

[Anonymous Coward]

It's good to see the ID cards going. Really good. But I think I'm going to partially reserve my enthusiasm for a few years down the line. There'll be momentum in the civil service behind this scheme, there'll be business interests lobbying for its "advantages", there are the existing deployments of cards for specific purposes. I believe "national ID cards" have been scrapped but I'm reserving judgement on whether that really means that "quasi-compulsory national card scheme to identify you" have been truly scrapped.

Blunket profited as ID card "consultant"

[Anonymous Coward]

The cheekey fucker
Blunket has made a fortune acting as a consultant for ID card vendors

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/26/blunkett_cashes_in/

Starting to like these guys...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

It's great to see civil liberties given a serious place on the agenda, I agree. However, I think the real proof of the coalition government's credentials will be in how many of the numerous minor abuses and infringements introduced under Labour will also be repealed.

It's easy to grab headlines with ID cards and the like. Only a handful of FUD-buyers ever thought those were a good idea, so it's likely to be popular with the electorate. It's also something that both parties in the coalition had in their manifestos, so it makes a good first move to prove that they can still achieve their goals in a coalition government.

However, will they also fix the problems with the Regulation of Invetigatory Powers Act (the one that says you can go to jail if you don't hand over passwords, even if you don't have such passwords)?

What about the Civil Contingencies Act (Blair's "Enabling Act", where ministers can basically suspend all kinds of freedom based on an arbitrary emergency)?

Will they defend our privacy against infringements by foreign governments, particularly the US?

Will they restrict the use of "anti-terror" powers to the very small group of organisations who might genuinely need to use such powers for their stated purpose? There is nothing done at local government level that requires such intrusive authority, for example, yet numerous local government organisations have powers to spy on people today.

My hope is that the comments made by Nick Clegg a few days ago, about asking the people which laws they wanted gone, were not just a cheap sound-bite. If they really mean that, and they follow through, I suspect this will be the best government we have had in my lifetime.

Good ideas and bad ideas

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

It might be useful for citizens (and, if necessary, visitors) to have a common identity number for all government services. Don't we effectively have that with our National Insurance numbers already, other than only issuing them in the teens rather than at birth? Being identifiable when claiming some entitlement (whether it is a state pension from the government or withdrawing cash from your bank account) is necessary, so we might as well minimise the hassle.

It might be useful to have a single identity card that could be used for many purposes, instead of carrying around lots of different credentials. We've known for some time that the most practically effective security system for everyday identification is to combine a physical token and a simple bit of knowledge, such as a card and a PIN. As long as there is a constitution-level law (i.e., only modifiable by referendum) that says no-one is ever required to produce that card on demand, there is little danger here, and it might be convenient and safer than what we have now.

Unfortunately, the proposals under the ID Card and National Identity Register scheme went way beyond these potentially useful steps and the limited risks associated with them. For example, there was no guarantee proposed to ensure that we would never be required to carry ID just to exercise a lawful right to leave our homes.

Moreover, the authorities weren't just issuing a unique ID and a method of demonstrating it, which is the potentially useful part. They were also collecting additional sensitive information (including the biometrics) in a central database, and they were going to make lots of information more widely available via that central database than it was before. There is a big difference between government departments using a common ID but otherwise keeping their own sensitive information about someone to themselves, and having some big central store that grows arbitrarily and offers "efficiency savings" if more and more data is just put in there by default.

It's not that the ID Card scheme had no merit at all. It's just that it came with a lot of unwelcome baggage, and without sufficient safeguards to prevent abuse, and with a high cost without demonstrating that any real benefits would be worth it. No system like this would ever be perfect, so you're always looking for an acceptable balance, something that works better than whatever alternatives are available. In this case, the balance was far too far toward the danger side.

Re:Good ideas and bad ideas

[PeterBrett]

It might be useful for citizens (and, if necessary, visitors) to have a common identity number for all government services. Don't we effectively have that with our National Insurance numbers already, other than only issuing them in the teens rather than at birth?

No. The NI number is only used for taxation and benefits purposes. I didn't need to give my NI number to the bank to open an account, nor to the public library to get a library card, nor to the local NHS surgery to register with the doctor there.

Not having a single identifying number is not a bug, it's a feature.

Re:Good ideas and bad ideas

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Not having a single identifying number is not a bug, it's a feature.

So some people keep saying, but I fail to see why.

I would agree that not having all the personal data in one place provide a useful firewall between government departments and, potentially, other organisations that used the same scheme. There is no need for people in one organisation ever to access potentially sensitive information in another organisation.

But what is the problem with using the same key to identify the records in different databases? Why is it helpful for us to use an NI number, a Unique Taxpayer Reference, various other credentials for accessing DirectGov services on-line, many equivalent details all over again if you access any government services on behalf of a business, etc?

Going beyond government services, why is it helpful for us to use N different bank cards, M different physical tokens and P different pieces of "memorable" information to identify ourselves, when what actually counts is just proving that we are authorised to make a certain transaction on a certain account? You have to provide supporting ID to open any of these accounts anyway under the money laundering prevention rules, so it's not as if you are somhow running multiple lives that protect you from some sort of potential abuse if the system goes wrong.

Our society's current identification systems are ludicrously overcomplicated, to the point where many of them offer little real benefit, yet the cumulative cost both to our economy and in terms of wasted time in our lives is huge. Would it not, being pragmatic, make many people's lives better if we did have a single, centralised, purely-identification system with:

• a single physical token (smart card or similar),
• a single set of associated memorable information (PINs, passwords, or similar),
• a single point of contact in the event of problems or security breaches (cancel and reset everything in one go in the event of a wallet being stolen or similar), and
• a reasonably robust way to prove identity in the event of ID theft (perhaps based on some form of web of trust, removing any dependence on other forms of ID completely)?

What, specifically, is the danger in such a scheme? Remember, I'm working on the basis that there are sufficient statutory safeguards against scope creep. I'm also working on the premise that the centralised database contain nothing except an individual's name and contact details, plus the information required to confirm the validity of their physical token and PINs/passwords/whatever, and that the only facility offered by such a service to third parties is to answer the question "Is the person claiming to be X and providing these credentials who they say they are?"

So with that extra slump

[Anonymous Coward]

so with that extra slump, we have tories created a slump, labour got in, left with a slump, tories got in, undid the slump, labour got in and created a slump and now we have the tories.

Given that we have no success on Labour ending a slump and we have one case where Tories did, I think that your party loyalty is being abused.

I wonder why so many Solid Labour supporters are absolutely RABID at Tories getting in. Petrified and trying to scare everyone else too. And STILL blaming Maggie Thatcher on Tony Blair's mistakes...

The US didn't make the NIR a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

The US didn't make the NIR a requirement, that was Labour's own invention (which they then blamed on ICAO/US/everyone else).

and still IBM is there to help them

[Anonymous Coward]

Now: http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security-management/2009/07/10/ibms-id-card-contract-to-last-seven-years-39672888/ "IBM will mainly use its own hardware and software to operate and integrate the NBIS database, and is the prime contractor"

Then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_during_World_War_II

At least IBM never helped the Stasi manage their registration database.

Well, here is how it works in holland

[SmallFurryCreature]

I went and lost my passport a while back and yes, in Holland that is required. So all I did was answer some basic questions. Fathers first name: Don't know. Mothers first Name: XXX (none of your business). Okay, here is your new ID.

Is that foolproof enough for you?

It sucks to be in power

[SmallFurryCreature]

I think people forget all the stuff Labour did when they were fresh in power.

And then the daily reality of ruling Britain and fighting on two fronts set in and we got all the crap, same as with the conservatives before. And a LOT of people seem to have forgotten what the conservatives got kicked out of government for.

Britain is in a away even more arrogant then the US (yes, that is possible Canadian readers) because at least US confidence is based on something. The UK has been nothing since the 60's but still acts like it is a major power. Right now it has a debt that is equal or even higher then trouble nations like Greece/Spain/Italy/US but with even fewer means of getting out of it. They can't even properly equip their army anymore. One minister left a note for his successor: "There is no more money". UK citizens LOVE the Greece crisis because it stops them having to look at their own economy that is not so much circling the drain as leaping into it.

That the conservatives are scrapping this ID card is not because they don't like it, Labour took the idea from them, but a sign that the country has to cut money everywhere. Even spare chance like this.

And with calls for thougher laws on immigration, some kind of ID system is going to be needed. I think this law is just on hold until the money can be found and if it can't... well then the UK has worse things to worry about. No ID? Then no food-stamps for you.

It will be very intresting to see what is going to happen in the UK in the period this goverment gets to rule (summer 2010). Two wars, world wide economic problems, highest debt ever, schotland not represented (they voted labour) in the government... it has been said that who ever would win this election would ensure they wouldn't rule again for another decade. I think this might be true.

Blair/Brown and Bush both must have looked at their successors and thought "SUCKER!".

Why they are reconsidering libel laws

[MobyDisk]

Is this case part of why they are rethinking the libel laws?

Repeal of Digital Economy Act (UK's DMCA)?

[rsborg]

Not according to the Conservative Sec Culture:

THE NEW GOVERNMENT'S new secretary for Culture Media and Sport, Jeremy Hunt has no plans to axe the Digital Economy Act, regardless of what the coalition parties might have said when they were canvassing for votes.

Every man and his dog's website is reporting a quote on Paidcontent:net, which has Hunt saying, "We're not going to repeal it," in response to questions about the Act, but no one - least of all his PR team - is able to inform us where the statement came from.

Lib-Dems want this gone (or fixed) but Conservatives are balking... wonder how this will play out.

Re:Repeal of Digital Economy Act (UK's DMCA)?

[Xest]

It's no suprise Hunt said that to be honest. He was the Tories biggest support of the DEB, in fact, when asked about the Conservatives thoughts on it, his view was that Labour were taking too long about it and should in fact have brought in 3 strikes and punishment without trial even quicker.

He's the biggest music industry stooge in the coalition government, so it's quite sad he's still got a position of power. The only upside is the DEA is split now between BIS and Jeremy's department- Vince Cable is in charge of BIS, and BIS is the department that created it under Mandelson, so there is some hope at least that it's not entirely up to Jeremy Cunt.

Re:Why the issues with illegal alien?

[Anonymous Coward]

Illegal immigration is definitely a bigger issue in the US than it is in the UK, I am from one place and live in the other. Most people held in the UK are asylum seekers who are held until their case comes up for review. The UK has a law that says they aren't allowed to deport people to countries where their life may be threatened. This has caused some stalling in deportations and longer incarcerations. Those people picked up on immigration raids who have no passport are typically released on bail for 6 months - this is a huge problem and most of the time means they are not deported and continue to work illegally. In the US you can be held indefinitely for a possible immigration offense and have no right to a lawyer. Ethnic profiling is a REALLY bad idea. How can you prove that the person is not a citizen? There are documented cases of US citizens almost being, or actually being deported because ICE determined they were illegal immigrants. One sad case was a US citizen of Mexican origin who was mentally ill and deported. USCIS picked up on the mistake when he tried to cross the US border to get home. Another was a born US citizen. He was picked up and ICE believed him to be an illegal Russian immigrant - he was detained and avoided deportation after his family found out about his situation via the news. Just found the story: http://www.startribune.com/nation/14456137.html. Then there's another recently: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/eduardo-caraballo-puerto-rico-deportion-94795779.html

passports still on

[Anonymous Coward]

"and the next generation of biometric passports."

The next generation? So we are still stuck with biometric passports then?

Did you read that paper?

[Anonymous Coward]

I still think that the Netherlands 'right to anonymity' is the way things should be heading http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=%201447332

It pretty much says that there isn't a general right to anonymity in Dutch law (just in special cases, like voting), and that there probably shouldn't be (though they seem to be in favor of adding more special cases).