Blunkett Backs Down on UK ID Cards 374
Anonymous Brave Guy writes "Some people don't like the civil rights concerns. Some think they'll cost too much. Some think they'll lead to more identity theft than identity verification. Some think governments can't manage big database projects and there are bound to be mistakes and over-runs. Any way you look at it, compulsory ID cards have a lot of potential drawbacks, so is the UK's Home Secretary, David Blunkett, starting to back down from the idea? Combining ID cards with passports and driving licenses was the key way to force them on an often unwilling UK population, and seems to have gone for good, but apparently legislation to bring in some form of ID card is still likely in the next Queen's Speech. Is it the beginning of the end of a bad idea, or just more spin to dodge the remaining concerns?"
i was thinking about them today... (Score:5, Insightful)
This doesn't seem like a new conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Moral: Liberty (Score:5, Insightful)
Differs from a drvier's license, how? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see how an National ID card changes anything. Especially for a country like the UK where the driver's licenses are issued by the national government.
So one want to explain (in relation to driver's licenses):
1) How this costs me any freedom I haven't already given up?
2) How this is supposed to stop terrorism?
OK, if you want to solve other problems like (a) long haul truck drivers having multiple IDs to avoid insurance/ticket issues, or (b) the fact that we are running out of Social Security numbers and will have to assign babies the numbers of dead people, I am OK with solving things like that.
And, if it is just one more card I have to carry in my already crowded wallet (thank you gorcery store loyalty cards)
But I fail to see how this is the end of the world or the world's saviour.
Who am I? (Score:1, Insightful)
The key element is with how it's used. I don't want to have to swipe my RFID ID to use the pisser at the mall. There needs to be rules about how and when an ID can be required.
Yeah I know that this is a UK topic, but hey, at least I spoke [typed] generally.
Re:Moral: Liberty (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bringing this back to the America's topic (Score:4, Insightful)
While I'm sure you enjoyed bashing Kerry, the fundamental difference between the US and Western Europe is that in most countries over there, the individual still has control over his/her data, meaning a company cannot resell the data without the individual's consent so having some form of national ID is not such a problem over there as it doesn't open the door to big corporations tracking your every move...
Election next year - possibly (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that this has anything to do with delaying implementations of unpopular laws though....
Re:Moral: Liberty (Score:2, Insightful)
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
I agree with this dead dude, btw
Re:Who am I? (Score:5, Insightful)
With a single form of ID, there is a single point of failure. When the One True Database has bad data about you, you will be screwed. If the One True Database says that you are a sex offender, then you are.
Furthermore, since the One True Database is always right, by definition, you will find it harder than ever to fix those mistakes.
Government inefficiency is the most immediate bulwark of our freedoms in the U.S. We don't want to risk eliminating it.
Here's a useful litmus test: if something would make life harder for would-be terrorists, it's going to take away freedoms we can't afford to loose, and the government wins. That's worse than letting the terrorists win, since the government has the ability and moral authority to kill far more of us than the terrorists could ever dream of hurting.
Too Much Data on One Card? (Score:2, Insightful)
If the US were to adopt a universal ID like the one advocated for England, I could only predict a security nightmare. Rest assured that calls for a US national ID will be on the lips of so many politicians if (when) there is another terrorist attack. Yet, far from improving the situation, a national ID would make the US less secure. For one, a national ID would greatly simplify the counterfeiting process. And for another, thieves would reap infinitely greater illicit rewards for stealing wallets. I'm glad the English are rejecting their proposal. (Really scare derivative thought: a global ID! EEK!)
ID cards have *NOT* been scrapped! (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article....
Plans to combine new compulsory identity cards with passports and driving licences have been dropped by Home Secretary David Blunkett.
and then it goes on to say that .....
The legislation to allow ID cards is widely expected to be promised in next month's Queen's Speech.
So, all they have done is backed down on plans to combine ID cards with other forms of ID.
We will still have to get ID cards, and *pay* for the prililage!.....
But the Home Office said the prices remained unchanged: people would pay either £35 for a stand-alone ID card or £77 for a passport and ID card together.
WTF! I have to get this by law, *and* i have to pay for it. So it's a TAX then?!
ID cards are unnecessary. They are just jumping on the 'Total control prevents Terrorism' bandwagon, and we all know that's a load of BS.
This is why no one in the UK trusts labour anymore. The sooner GW's lap dog is kicked out of office the better.
National ID cards are a distraction!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Pragmatically we already have national ID cards. Between drivers liscensces, passports and social security cards we have all the disadvantages of a national ID card. I can barely get through a day, much less a lifetime without these IDs.
The fact that I *could* theoretically get along without these cards doesn't mean anything. If I created a national DNA database (full DNA which could be tested for diseases) it wouldn't be okay if I allowed people to pay $100 to opt out.
Continuing to crow about things like national ID cards distracts from real issues of privacy. Defating national ID schemes gives us empty victories that make us think we are maintaining our privacy.
--
Personally I think maintaining privacy, at least in the traditional sense, isn't a viable option. Even if we win every legislative victory it is too easy to give corporations access to our personal data for a minor convenience. The fact that a few privacy minded individuals might avoid this net makes no difference in the big picture. Any societal harms will still occur even if 1% of society is not in any database.
Privacy, despite the name, is not a personal issue. The harms are not individual, accuring to you because your information is in a database but rather societal resulting from the fact that a large enough percentage of people are in databases.
Instead of fighting minor skirmishes against ID cards while our privacy is eroded behind our back we should try and minimize the negative social effects of privacy. The primary danger that erosion of privacy provides is that effective privacy will be availible only to the rich. This is already happening....cameras aren't put in well to do suburbs.
I contend this is the primary danger from losing privacy. Everyone does socially unacceptable things behind closed doors, be it smoking joints or having kinky sex. If we don't make sure privacy is lost by the well-off at the same rate it is lost by the poor we risk exagerating the problems we have in the war on drugs. Namely, where the poor and minorities are targeted, either legally or just by insurance companies and public opinion, for their 'inappropriate behavior' while the rich get a free pass.
The database is the problem, not the card! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are ID cards a bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
You may well think you have nothing to hide today, but tomorrow ID cards are the perfect discrimination tool, that is after all the whole purpose for an ID card.
Why ID cards are useless, or at least, the arguments given for them so far are bogus:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ican/A2561834
UK campaign against ID cards:
http://www.no2id.net/
Re:This is the 8th try... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mind you, the British have changed their minds in the past. The reason Nynex laid all the cables in Britain is that British Telecom were banned from doing so in the 1940s. The reason for the ban was that cable networks were seen as dangerous, as in the event of a dictatorial Government, the media would be controllable from a central point. (It was also argued that if people didn't have radio receivers, it would be harder for resistance groups to communicate unobtrusively by radio.)
Today, of course, we wouldn't dream of having an unelected foreign Government dictate British policy, control British troops, invade British businesses,
You'll still be carrying multiple IDs (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's an *additional* ID that you will have to carry.
Not only that. To be remotely effective it is an ID which it must be compulsory to carry, that means fines and jail time if you don't. The UK ID scheme requires that an individual register with the state *and tell it where you live*. You move house and forget to tell the government, you get fined. You don't tell them you also live at your girlfriends? That's an offense.
ID cards are great, because... (Score:4, Insightful)
And if you're having a small car accident somewhere and both parties don't want to bother calling the police you can quickly exchage your (authenticated!) name.
In effect, the ID card is a downsized version of the ID card that is already part of EU passports (the plastic, machine-readable part). And there's no secret information stored on it either, because you can tell how the information is encoded in the two machine-readable lines of text:
- The lead string "ID" to calibrate the card readers.
- Surname
- First mame
- Number of the ID card
- Country issued
- Date issued
- Expiration date
- Checksum
Say Cowboy Neal was born in Britain on 1 January 1977 and had an ID card that expired on the UNIX epoch (just making this up), then his entry could read (assuming the British card follows the European model):(X, Y, Z being check digits I can't be bothered to compute right this morning, and the spurious blank is inserted bySo it's very simple and transparent, no Orwellian tech built in. That's why I love my (German) ID card and always carry it (even in Britain) to give evident that I'm me (and not Elvis), fly around without having to remember did I forget my passport, and yet nobody can easily abuse the system.
A biometric passport, on the other hand, would be a completely different matter...
--
Try Nuggets [mynuggets.net], the first UK SMS search engine. Answer your questions via simple text messages, all across the UK.
The ID card system would have to be huge (Score:3, Insightful)
An ID card system would be far far larger and more complex than the NHS IT system. The estimated 3 billion cost is a joke. A white elephant doesn't begin to describe it, a white Mammoth might.
Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the BBC is pretty independant.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? (Score:2, Insightful)
A *hugh* proportion of people in England DO NOT DRIVE.
The reasons for this are pretty understandable.
Petrol in England is really expensive, at around four times what it is in America. There is a reason why Europeans do not drive SUV and prefer same economy numbers like a Golf etc.
Traffic congestion is a major problem, with london being in almost constant gridlock and there being almost nowhere to park anyway.
There just isn't the association with, driving == freedom, or driving == coming of age, that Americans seem to have. Partly because of the above reasons but also because it is a completly different culture in England with sad wankers like trainspotters taking the place of rice boyz etc. Even though the public transport system is a nightmare (although I have never used public transport in America).
And Distances are not that great anyway. You could probally travel from the northest point of England to the south in a couple of days depending on whether you count Scotland or not.
Saying that a ID card is not needed in England because everyone drives and hense has a drivers license is like saying that they should have built Windsor castle closer to the airport. Not everywhere is some cultural bastardisation of American, Yet.
The real reason... (Score:4, Insightful)
No silly - there is an election coming up.
Re:i was thinking about them today... (Score:5, Insightful)
GOOD
BAD
Ask yourself, who serves whom?
For what it's worth, Putin has endorsed Bush (Score:3, Insightful)
But I already carry my eyes and fingerprints (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do I need to carry biometric data about my eyes and fingerprints with me, when I'm already taking my actual eyes and fingerprints?
If we are going to be identified by biometric data, how can looking at a forgable, breakable, swappable, stealable card be more reliable than looking at the actual evidence?
Re:Cannot critisize David Blunket (Score:1, Insightful)
We could see all this as one big soap opera, if it wasn't for the fact that it affects real lives.
Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Saw an excellent BBC documentary last night called "The Power of nightmares" which shows how the right has manufactured 'imaginary enemies' and exagerated threats (we all know which ones) so that they can tighen their grip on power.
Hardly toeing the government line is it?
Re:The ID card system would have to be huge (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can someone explain why there is a push for ID cards of this sort?
The explanation is that David Blunkett is a facist control freak in a department of facist control freaks.
The justification given for these cards has varied over the last 5 years with the current bogey man e.g. asylum seekers(codeword for illegal imigrant), benefit fraud(at one point they were trying to pass them off as "entitlement cards"), terrorism, identity theft etc. but they have not produced a coherent explanation as to how any of these problems would be solved by their cards.
Re:i was thinking about them today... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, the British government consists of 'ordinary people in the UK', making decisions for the '(perceived) best interest of the nation as a whole'. So were many other democratically elected governments that curbed the movement, freedom of speech, general liberties and in some cases the lives of 'citizens / subjects' that were perceived to be a threat to the nation as a whole.
Such governments have existed in the past, and will probably occur in the future. Often the incremental moves towards such a forms mean that the line between 'Protecting Society' and 'Too Far' becomes blurred.
ID cards would enable greater power to be exerted by all forms of governments. A bout of a UK strain of McCatrthyism could result in some citizens being "accidentally" added to lists of paedophiles or terrorists.
I'm not sure whether the benefits outweigh the risks associated with the project. Besides, and let's face it, the government is bound to cock it up.
Re:i was thinking about them today... (Score:3, Insightful)
Data will be collected and stored in a database regardless of wether it's a centralized database or several databases at a number of different organizations.
What people should be fighting is not a national ID system but the ABUSE of such a system, and for that matter, the abuse of the CURRENT systems, that happen too frequently already.
Yes, the secret police here in Sweden did register who was a potential terrorist, and who spoke out against the government during the 50s and 60s. However, that was illegal and it was all collected and brought up on people's screens without the knowledge of the people being investigated. They had no idea who had access to the information about them, or how it was used.
This isn't much different from what's happened in other countries though and the existance or lack of a national ID database wouldn't have stopped this practice in the slightest. In fact, in many countries that did not HAVE a national ID system, things got way worse. And I'm talking about western countries here.
Re:i was thinking about them today... (Score:3, Insightful)
If a traffic officer asks me for my drivers licence, radios back to base, someone will have my driving record up on the screen. But they will not (I hope) have intelligence my political views, my health record, my travel history...
This is the point about keeping these various IDs for specific purposes separate. The government has no right to know information about my health, my political views, etc., since I am not breaking the law.
Re:i was thinking about them today... (Score:3, Insightful)
They claim they are not 'racist', so perhaps that makes you a 'liar'. I don't really mean that, it's just a point about using labels to dismiss other people's arguments.
The BNP says people from other countries should go and sort out their own countries. This is different from the current government who wants to bring doctors and nurses from 3rd world countries which obviously impoverishes those countries by taking their best talent and the fruits of their investment in their own people. So there is some merit in some BNP policy.
However, personally, I disagree with BNP policy. Yet I think it is possible for someone to see merit in the BNP political argument without being racist.
So if people who think that this political solution is good cannot teach, then what next? Perhaps people who believe the Bible should not be allowed to teach (the Bible speaks against homosexuality).
Just remember, if you happen to agree with every moral standard that is currently in fashion, then you probably would have done the same if you lived in a different era - and you may not be thinking for yourself.
Re:i was thinking about them today... (Score:3, Insightful)
But an ID card system allows them to find you oh so much quicker than one without.
I can't recommend IBM and the Holocaust (Edwin Black, ISBN: 0316857718) highly enough for anyone even vaguely interested in the social effects of advanced technology. The book covers IBM's relationship with the Nazis through their German subsidiary.
During the 1930s many European countries were automating data for censuses and social provision. Almost all of these systems were based on IBM punchcard technology manufactured in Germany.
The Nazis loved censuses and openly included racial profiling on their punch cards. Other countries wanted to know about race, religion and occupation for benign purposes such as providing social services. The Dutch were at the forefront of this, wanting to make sure that everyone was given equal access to social services. So they innocently asked about individuals race - so as to ensure there was no discrimination.
When the Nazis rolled in to the Netherlands they grabbed all the census records and the punchcard machines. They then just ran the cards looking for Jews - and out popped all their addresses.
In short, 75% of Dutch Jews were murdered by the Nazis thanks to an extensive automated ID system. In France, which had similar levels of Jewish integration into the population, but no automation, 'only' 25% were killed.
That our politicians are prepared to go ahead with such a system despite this clear warning from history is terrifying. I'd say Blunkett was blind - but that might be in poor taste.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:i was thinking about them today... (Score:3, Insightful)
Since you're obsessed with motorways, lets lay the autobahn myth to rest. Pre WW2 Germany had one of the lowest rates of car ownership in Europe, Volkswagen did not deliver a single car to the people before the outbreak of war and almost all freight continued to be moved by rail. The autobahn were designed from the start to move troops and tanks. The propaganda angle was that Germany was moving into the motor age. It didn't.
Access to rockets is (somewhat) controlled by a series of international agreements as are devices such as nuclear weapons, chemicals and biological agents. So they can be enforced through international law.
And try as I might I fail to see how a motorway can be used to persecute a particular member of society. An ID card can.
Interesting that you have faith in a constitution. Why would you choose this particular government to be qualified to lay down principles that all future governments must follow? The mess that is the mass ownership of guns in America is down to the fact that the constitution was written at a time when gun ownership seemed like a good thing. Times change.
A constitution does not usually lay down law - rather it confines actual laws saying what is and what is not permissible. And no, a constitution is not for all time - they have things called amendments (which is what you are citing when referring to Amendment 2 to the American Constitution). Constitutions can be changed - BUT - and here is the important bit - they have a principle called entrenchment - they cannot be overturned by a simple piece of legislation. The US Constitution can be amended at any time provided that there is majority support - not only in Congress but in at least two thirds of the states. Constitutions can be changed, but only when required. Provided you write a good constituion (which the founding fathers did) you have a good way of ruling.
And whilst I disagree with the tenate of the 2nd Amendment, I think it is a little presumptuous of us to say it should be changed when there is clearly little popular support for such a move. When (and I hope it is a when and not an if) the majority of Americans want to revoke the 2nd Amendment they have a procedure to do so.
Compare it to the UK if a government were to ban a fundamental right (an abstract term in British constitutional law) it could do so with a simple Act of Parliament (it'll be even easier if Blunkett gets his emergency powers bill through the Commons). And that's it - no judge can overturn it, no one can declare the law wrong, the European Court on Human Rights could scream but not overturn it, and provided it didn't breach the EC Treaty 1957, there is nothing the European Court of Justice can do either.
I find it hard to believe that there is an argument for not having a constitution.
So are you against increasing the number of policemen? On the one hand, they are useful in combatting crime. On the oitherhand there's the possibility of them being misused as a political army against the people, as happened at Orgreave.
There is nothing about increasing the number of police in my argument. If on the otherhand police were given new powers then my argument stands. We are policed by consent only - not by the imposition of powers.
Do you for instance support stop and search? Which has time and time again been used in a discriminatory way against young blacks and now young Asians? before you give anyone any power you should be certain that they will use it in a responsible manner and be held to account if they do not. The British government and the police are largely unaccountable to the population.
And the ID card wasn't invented by the nazis. You can't seperate them on that flimsy basis. They were all used by the nazis to further their aims. As were airplanes and ships. Perhaps those should be banned too.
Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you see last week's episode? They've been doing it for a long time. Apparently the neocon cabal had a go at this sort of thing in the seventies. First off, they decided that the CIA wasn't doing its job properly. So they had their own people go over the data as well. What did they come up with? A whole lot of Soviet superweapons that were so tremendously secret that there was no evidence for their existence at all! That was the frightening part - the neocons KNEW the Soviets had all kinds of secret weapons, so the fact that they could hide them so well, and put on this totally convincing act of being behind in the arms race, was a shock.
First lesson learned: bullshitting about nonexistent weapons can help your political goals.
Later, one of their political sympathisers came to be head of the CIA. At the time, the big story, popularised in some alarming book or other, was that the Soviets were behind every terrorist organisation worldwide. ALL of them. A report was demanded from the CIA, which had to prove that this was indeed true. The intelligence analysts were amazed. 'But it isn't true,' they replied. 'But look at all the evidence,' said the neocons. Most of this evidence turned out to actually be the CIA's own propaganda... but hey, you do as the boss says. Report produced, Soviets denounced as Evil Empire.
Second lesson learned: the intelligence services can always be bullied into producing a report that matches your propaganda needs.
Who's this 'they' I'm referring to, btw? Just a generic 'neocons' or 'the right'? No. The same few names throughout. Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle... all Bush's minders. The same damn cabal all the time. It's enough to make you start wondering if maybe there isn't something to all this conspiracy crap about Illuminati...
And yes, it's plain enough that the BBC doesn't toe the government line. They're never going to admit defeat over Hutton. Have you seen the recent storylines on Spooks?
Advice to future PMs: don't fuck with the BBC...