The commenter who asked why the British people have a problem with identity cards is like many who ask the question; missing the point. We should be asking why we need them. Simply put; we don’t. There is nothing in our daily lives that would be made simpler or more secure by having them. That other countries do is not a sufficient argument. Other countries do as the Home Office is trying to do; create an artificial need.
However, it goes much deeper than that. Whenever ID cards are mentioned, the usual “reasons” are trotted out by those with a one-stop-shop solution to a thousand problems. Repeating them here may seem a bit tedious, but because the usual arguments in their favour are dusted off and repeated with regularity, rebuttal has to be carried out likewise.
- Terrorism – I’ll start with this one because it always comes up and it is always nonsense. Let’s be clear here identity cards have no effect on terrorism whatsoever. I repeat, no effect whatsoever. Spain has a much touted ID card system; a hangover from the totalitarian Franco government. It didn’t stop the Madrid bombers. The new breed of terrorist wants to be identified. They make videos to be shown after their death glorifying in their activities. Even David Blunkett had to admit that terrorism would not be affected by ID cards. So please, let’s put this one to bed.
- Security – we will be more secure from identity thieves. Oh, please, spare me from this one… Having everything accessed via the National Identity Register will create a single point of failure. Access this, and you have everything necessary to compromise an individual’s identity. A the moment if you want to create a false identity or clone someone else’s, you need a series of low level documents. It isn’t particularly difficult, but takes time and effort. A one-stop-shop will make it as simple as hacking the system (oh yes they will) or bribing someone who has access (oh, yes they will).
- Crime – criminals will see a whole new money making opportunity with this. Fakes will flood the market. Biometrics are not the panacea that ministers claim and in doing so, they merely highlight their own ignorance. Biometrics have two areas of failure. Firstly, the technology is relatively new and immature, so there will be enough false positives and negatives to make some form of backup system necessary (added cost and effort). Also, readers will be expensive. Outlets will not necessarily have them and will rely on a visual check – how will they know the card before them is fake? They won’t.
- Freedom and privacy – these appear to be dirty words in todays society. A society that is unable to recall recent history, it seems. ID cards and population databases are beloved tools of totalitarian dictatorships. A free, liberal, common law democracy has no need of such tools. In order to be effective at what is claimed for them, the ID cards and the database will need checking when carrying out relevant transactions. This will create a massive audit trail. Currently, little bits of our lives are recorded on disparate systems. Put it all together and routine snooping becomes a possibility. For most people, this will not be an overt problem. For those who are deemed to be a nuisance, subtle interference with the database will see them locked out of crucial services. Will it happen? Who can be sure? What matters is that the possibility will be that much more likely and simpler to execute. We have no way of knowing what governments will be elected in the future and how benign they will be with such a tool at their disposal. Again, hackers could do untold damage – and none of this even touches on the problems that incompetence will cause. The government’s track record in IT is hardly confidence inspiring.
- Cost – We have seen the potential cost rise from around £75 to £93 and if the LSE estimate is right, £300. Whatever the final cost, it is more than we are currently paying; nothing if we don’t drive or travel abroad. What is worse, not only is this a tax, a licence to exist at the discretion of the government, but they are going to charge VAT on the tax.
I was born a free man in a common law democracy. I am under no obligation to prove my identity to anyone. For the most part, those with whom I carry out transactions know only what I choose to share with them. Enough and no more. This is how it should be. If I so choose, I could use different names and addresses when dealing with different organisations as I have two perfectly legitimate addresses. This is my right. For the most part, organisations do not need to know who I am – or at least they only need that information sufficient to do business with them and no more.
I do not belong to the state – it is my servant and I pay its minions’ wages. That is how it should be. A free society exists where the government is open to scrutiny, and the electorate, should they so wish, remain anonymous.
I can see where you’re coming from, Longrider, but the majority of your points stem from the idea that it is impractical and unworkable for the UK to have an ID card system. This is clearly not so, as most other European countries seem to have worked out a viable system. It must surely be possible for us to do the same, if not better, if our European cousins can manage a working system.
I can’t really agree with your philosophical opposition, either. We live in a ‘Social Contract’ type of society, wheter we like it or not, and our benevolent state provides us with schools, hospitals and other services. It therefore seems entirely logical that the state should demand, or at least expect, us to be identifiable.
I could go on, but there’s work to be done. sorry for the tersenes of this reply!
”'{Longrider replies} Sorry Jeff, but you are still missing the point. My points do not stem the idea that it is impractical and unworkable for the UK to have an ID card system. They stem from the idea that we do not need one.”’
”’What our European cousins have is nothing like what is being proposed here. This is mass surveillance on an unprecedented scale for mass surveillance’s sake. The excuse that the EU and the USA are a reason for us to fall into line has been exposed as a blatant lie. Even the US is starting to back away from its insistence on biometric passports. Your assumption that government will be benign and continue to be so is misplaced and ignores history. Social contract or not, the state exists because we agree to it and fund it – it works for us, not the other way around. The state and other agencies only have the right to demand just what is necessary to do business and no more. The state does not need my finger prints, iris scans, previous addresses et al – and it will not get them.”’
”’That other countries have them is not a reason and never was. In fact no one has proposed a valid reason that holds up to any rational scrutiny. As I’ve stated before, Identity Cards are a solution desperately seeking a problem to solve. We don’t need them, they will give us nothing that we do not already have and my opposition remains implacable to the point where I will refuse to cooperate. If you are happy to be tagged and licensed by the state, well, that’s up to you. I will not.”’