There’s an interesting little spat going on between The Devil’s Kitchen and Neu Labour apologist, Neil Harding on the matter of identity cards. While the invective is entertaining, I don’t plan to join in. I merely want to reiterate just why this bill is such an appalling idea.
Firstly, let’s look at why we are supposed to need them.
Terrorism – I’ll start with this one because it is perhaps the most high profile reason given and is the one most readily refuted. Indeed, so weak is it as a justification that the home secretary, Charles Clarke has admitted that identity cards would have made no difference to the London bombings in July. Home grown terrorists will have identity cards. And, being otherwise innocent of any such activity until they carry out their outrages, they will not trigger any alarm bells. Yet still government ministers and apologists will spout this reason. They modify their language, which is true enough. Nowadays, we are told, ID cards will cause disruption to terrorist activities. How, exactly, remains a mystery.
Benefit fraud – we hear less of this lately, although that may change as the quicksands of justification shift from one dubious argument to another in an attempt to wrong foot anyone who dares to question the masters of Whitehall. Benefit fraud usually consists of black market labour working cash in hand while claiming benefit or tax credits. There is a lie, but that lie is not about who the person is, rather it is about their circumstances. ID cards and the national identity register that will underpin it, presumably will identify the benefit cheats. How, exactly, remains a mystery.
Identity fraud – this is the flavour of the moment. Everyone is talking about it. Unfortunately everyone does not agree what, exactly, we are talking about. When the home office speaks of identity fraud, it is sweeping in all sorts of nefarious activities that cannot be considered as stealing an identity. Using false documents to pass oneself off as another for the purposes of deception is not stealing an identity. At best, this can be classed as borrowing it for a short period for the purposes of carrying out the main criminal activity; theft. Stealing an identity means just that; living as another; taking over their life and using their good standing to obtain goods, services, loans, accommodation, benefits or whatever. The “Day of the Jackal” type of deception is true identlty theft. Using a cloned or stolen credit card to buy something on the Internet is most certainly not identity theft. Of course, this bill before parliament does set out to make this a specific offence and I support that. At least then, it will be defined and people properly prosecuted if caught. If we assume that the national identity register works as it is supposed that it will and that the technology is faultless and the people operating it do so with fine precision, it is conceivable that the system will have some effect on identity theft. However, bear in mind that the scheme will cost according to government figures around £5.8Bn to save, what? £35million per annum? If the LSE research is the more accurate (£18Bn), the cost benefit looks even weaker. This is using a crowbar to pick a padlock – for something that might have some impact.
Illegal immigration – Ignoring for a moment that people migrating to this country are already issued with identity cards, it is unclear how ID cards will have any impact. Illegals hide away from those places where they are likely to be challenged. They work for people who don’t ask questions and certainly won’t be asking for ID cards. Yet this scheme is supposed to solve all of this. How, exactly, remains a mystery.
Proving who we are – this perhaps is the crux of my objection. Charles Clarke poses with an inane grin brandishing an Identity Card while telling us that this is not Big Brother, it is the means of controlling Big Brother, a means of controlling and asserting our identity. What tosh! I am perfectly capable of asserting my identity should I so wish. The reality is that for much of the time, I simply don’t need to. How frequently do we need to prove who we are? Most of the people with whom we do business couldn’t care less who we are; simply that we have the wherewithal to pay them. What we have here is a self-fulfilling need. A need created by government for a problem that does not exist. Incidentally, it is a need for which the government has a solution – special price £30, just for you and I’m cutting my own throat, here. Now, doesn’t that give you a warm little glow deep inside?
The other issue I have is the intrusive nature of the national identity register. Of the 51 registerable facts, the government has a right to know my name and current address if I am to do business with them. Those government agencies with which I interact, have this information already. The other 49 registerable facts are nobody’s business but mine. Why, exactly, does the home office need to know where I used to live? If I had taken on a new identity to flee an abusive relationship, I would be deeply worried about revealing this information. I might be masquerading under a different name, but the unique identifier and biometric information would unmask me – this, presuming that the technology works as it should.
Presuming that scenario – that technology works, the database is accurate and everybody involved is competent and incorruptible, the nature of the database and the audit trail makes profiling a doddle in a manner previously not possible. In the event of it not working as it should, profiling will still go on; it’s just that the results will be flawed. For the victim this could have devastating consequences.
Those who support this bill, do so in the belief that we, the people, need to be controlled and guided, identified and tagged for our own good. To protect us from those the government deems will do us harm. Those of us who object do so because we are adults and wish to be treated as such; to live our lives as we see fit, without interference, providing it harms no one else.
A few months back I read a comment written by a Swede. He claimed that their system was an excellent one and that it made access to services so much simpler, they couldn’t possibly manage without their ID cards. Of course not. If the government makes living without one all but impossible, naturally they will make life easier. They are a self-fulfilling need. In the real world, we simply do not need them.
—–