There’s an neat example of the straw man fallacy illustrated over at the NO2ID Newsblog that’s worth reading:
An interesting correspondence is developing in the pages of the Glasgow Herald. On Wednesday 4th April the paper published a letter from Geraint Bevan…
It’s interesting because Geraint makes a valid point about the national identity register and the risks the joined up information trail poses for victims of abuse. Something I pointed out to Neil Harding when he suggested that blanket surveillance was a jolly good idea. Geraint’s letter elicited a response form Joan Ryan, which is intriguing because it would seem that government is now engaging directly with objectors. Are they worried, one wonders? In it, she accused Geraint of scaremongering:
Geraint Bevan’s scaremongering comments about identity cards are simply wrong. The Identity Cards Act strictly prohibits details such as your medical records or salary details being stored on the National Identity Register. In fact, only basic personal information necessary for identification purposes can be held. In addition, only vetted civil servants will have access to the register and not private companies as Mr Bevan states. Private organisations will only be able to request confirmation of an individual’s identity and then only with that individual’s consent.
This is all very well, but as NO2ID point out:
Interestingly, Mr Bevan’s letter didn’t mention medical records or salary details at all.
What Ms Ryan omits to mention is that the NIR is intended to form a spine, linking all other databases. Joined up government I believe they call it. Or as Neil would have us believe “more efficient”. It is also worth bearing in mind this administration’s abuse of the English language. When they use words such as “voluntary” to mean “compulsory” we can be reasonably confident that “consent” means having no option if you want access to relevant services. And how exactly will informed consent be verified? It is also interesting that she is somewhat vague as to what she means by “vetted” civil servants. Frankly, that could be just about anything. Well, anyone employed by the civil service…
Also note her use of the term “basic personal information” – all 51 registrable facts. If all they need is basic personal information, then those 51 facts are way over the top.
What we have here is a government minister lying through her teeth (no surprises there, then) and using the straw man fallacy to discredit an objector. This is something I find encouraging – although frustrating to deal with when trying to hold a rational discussion – because it demonstrates that the pinprick of dissent is having an effect.