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?"
Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, we do have driver's licenses and passports, but are people wanting to combine them just in the name of efficiency or what?
On the other hand, what's so bad about having a card like this?
Re:Privacy: West versus East (Score:2, Interesting)
This is the 8th try... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion (Score:2, Interesting)
Freedom with no boundaries is no freedom at all (Score:2, Interesting)
So, ID cards take away the freedom? That's news to me. I've got a unique social security number on an ID card. It's required when I use public services such as health care, when I vote, to show that I am permitted to drive a car or that I am the owner of the bank/credit card when I'm making a significant purchase. And you know what? I like it. I like to know that requiring positive identification reduces health care fraud, that it's hard for someone to vote in my place or that it's risky for a thief to use my bank/credit card. No, an ID card is not the perfect solution, but it will do a lot of good.
This talk about people losing their freedoms if ID cards are issued is just a lot of hot air and a non-issue. It's an extremist, all-or-nothing attitude that's bordering on religious fervor and hysteria. Such ideals are hardly ever practical or even beneficial in real life.
There is no such thing as too much liberty ... it would be like saying that science is too rational.
Well, as a scientist I don't think a purely rational approach to problems would work as well as the present intuitive/rational-combination.
Saying that there can not be too much liberty is nonsense. Freedom is essentially defined by the few boundaries we set to it. No boundaries, no freedom.
Re:Who am I? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here in Sweden, there's been a standard for ID-cards for several years. Any SIS-approved ID-card (such as, for instance, my drivers license, bank ID or postal ID) is valid for identification.
I have yet to see any lack of civil liberties resulting from this. On the contrary, our ID-cards, along with our personal numbers (think social security numbers, except better) make it easier to make sure who's who. And that's the point if it all, anyway. To let you tell others that you're the one that your ID-card says you are.
As for databases, well, there'll never be a "one true database" anyway. Different organizations will always have their own databases. A standardized ID will let them make sure who's who though, so that you won't get confused with that terrorist guy on the floor above, who just happens to share your last name.
Re:Bringing this back to the America's topic (Score:1, Interesting)
US is experiencing a lot of difficulties these days about registration of voters and there are used big resources to get voters to register as well as preventing them from voting by questioning their registrations.
I live in a country with a governmental register of all people in the country - and this has be running without any problems since the sixties. We all have a CPR number (Central Person Register number) that is assigned at birth (or at immigration) and will follow us till we die. We have no ID card as such but the number is used in all contact with the government, municipal, etc.
But the best thing is that voters cards are just printed out before any election, countrywide or local. These cards are presented when you want to vote and by such identifies the voter and prevents any voter for casting more than one vote.
This is a rather simple approach and is probably why we can maintain above 80% in vote rate at the elections for the parliament. And just as a side note: The system has been a great success and has been exported to many other countries throughout the world. Maybe US should show some interest in it
Re:Feh. (Score:1, Interesting)
Check your facts right. This is absolutely bullshit, the ID card in France is even not compulsory to GET.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Amen to that (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, foreigners have to register in the UK as well. But it's a lot easier to get the requisite stamps, and there is no requirement to present these documents to any policeman on demand. Whereas in Russia, policemen gather outside bars frequented by foreigners, in order to check their documents and extract a little late-night "foreigner tax". It's all about implementation - without safeguards, the system will certainly be abused. But better not to have the system in the first place.
Re:I'm blindist! (Score:2, Interesting)
> This sounds terrible - but I've always thought that a guy who
> couldn't see wouldn't really be able to grasp the full privacy
> implications of any aspects of government policy.
My problem with a blindman being in charge of a large government
department is that he can't possibly assess all the data necessary to
come to a competent decision - he quite literally can't see what is
going on around him!
I am yet to see any sort of article in any sort of media about whether
Blunkett is fit to be a government minister. Something that needs
serious discussion....without accusations of prejudice being bandied about.
The national ID scheme will be a waste of money and bypassed by
villains. Even by Blunkett's best estimates only 99 out of 100 people
will likely have an ID card. If you are a terrorist you are not
going to get one and if you do it will be somebody elses. That defeats
any purpose the ID scheme may have.
I recommend Dr Ross Anderson's written submission to the Home Affairs commitee [fipr.org] as further reading.
Choice quote:
There are good reasons why the typical citizen currently has a number
of cards, keys and other access tokens. Cramming more function into a
token makes it more liable to failure, more complex to maintain, a
more attractive target for forgers, and a greater threat to privacy.
Re:Labour will win anyway (Score:1, Interesting)
The Tory and Lib Dems will almost certainly outwheigh Labour by enough to form an effective opposition in Parliament, so things will be a lot tougher for 'Tone and his Cronies in 2005.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? (Score:5, Interesting)
They do, depending on the circumstances.
"Even with drivers licences I believe that if you get stopped without yours whilst driving you have 5 days to turn up at the police station with your licence in hand."
A 'producer' is a slip of paper that has boxes ticked to indicate what documents you have to take to a police station within 7 days of being given it. I've gotten away with 10 days and a telling off.
"Most people I think want ID for conveniance, since they percieve more and more places are requiring legal ID"
No, generally they want proof of address; this then links to the Experian credit database and the electoral register (which Experian have full access to, but most other companies do not...a recent change to mean 'opting out' of the sold copy of the electoral register is now possible). Proof of address is as simple as a utility bill. You'd be surprised how many times a Passport is refused as ID.
As for 'ID as convenience', this is a fairly daft idea that completely ignores the problem of government misuse of databases, or even the idea that the government _can_ maintain a very large database after the style of Envision, the TV License people. Who, incidentally, evade the Data Protection Act.
"security and fraud protection"
Of course, the chip and pin proponents completely fail to realise that it shifts liability from the merchant to the consumer, so instead of the supposedly superior method of having someone check the signature on the back of the card with the actual signature (which is still the accepted method for cheques worldwide), they've gone for 9^4 combination with a private key that relies on nobody shoulder-surfing in a store.
Likewise, the Biometric card identifies the person holding it. To suggest that the technologies used in such a card wouldn't be duplicatable within a couple of months of rollout is to ignore the fact that our 'new' passport design was faked within 2 weeks of unveiling, and you can _still_ obtain a chain of documentary evidence for a false persona given the desire, money and tools.
This is essentially the backdoor to the desired gene/fingerprint database that gives Blunkett the giggles and it's this that has earned him Big Brother awards galore. The man has _introduced_ 270 offences over the term of the present government, and is one of the reasons I'm questioning my socialism.
It's not just the govenment. (Score:5, Interesting)
A man who worked for the driving licence authority misused his access to their database to pass details to Animal Rights protestors about people who may be involved with Chris Hall - a breeder of guinea pigs for medical testing.
The details of 13 people were handed out and a variety of offences of criminal damage were conducted against them, including smashed windows and pushing a hosepipe through the front door to fill the house with water.
It's not just the government who'll have access to the database, it's every employee too.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? (Score:3, Interesting)
When I passed back in 1994, there were NO photos on the Driving License, and the actual license is a peice of A4 size (Almost letter, for the Americans here) paper that is folded into four.
Imagine the look on the faces of American Car Hire companies when i show that when they request to see my license when I drive in the US!
Althoguh now we do have a photo License card, in-line with most otehr countries, you are not required to carry it with you whilst driving anyway. And for just routine check stops its rarely asked, i know because a few years back, I used to get stopped frequently because they thought I looked "too young" to be driving a Mercedes. But all they did was give some slight questions whilst they checked the databse, then let me go without even checking my ID.
PS, yes it was a pain that they kept stopping me, but then again, if some young joyrider nicked my car, at least I knwo the police do actually act on suspitions, and they were pretty friendly and apologetic when they stopped me.
Re:i was thinking about them today... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, the current Govt. in the UK seems to have made the thought process:
"unwritten constituion=we can do anything we want" and has gone beserk with vague and ill thought out constitutional change.
Look at Hunting. They intend to use the Parliament act to force it through the Lords. Think about that for a moment. The Lords is a mechanism to prevent Parliament enacting bad law. The Parliament act is a way to overrule that check in an emergency - for example if the Lords is blocking a Finance act and so preventing the Govt doing anything. The hunting bill isn't an emergency. Regardless of it's merits either way, it's not an emergency. What it is, is politically necessary for Tony Blair to keep control of activists in his party. Not the same thing.
Anyway, dragging myself closer to the topic:
Is it pretty unlikely to be added to the list of terrorists? Ask Ted Kennedy about that one.
Is it going to be compulsory? You yourself insist that it should be needed to get health care or to buy a beer in a pub or to get a job. That sounds pretty compulsory to me.
The expense will be huge. I cannot recall a major computer system implementation in the UK that has not been a complete disaster. Air traffic control? Disaster. Magistrate Court? Disaster. Passport Office? Disaster. Criminal background checks on School employees? Disaster. and on and on.
In fact, my objections to this scheme are almost entirely theoretical because I don't reckon they have the ability to implment it.
Here's another point: what about the guy who just got jailed for providing information from the DVLA databases to terrorists? Or the temp, who used to work for a newspaper, that got employed by the Cabinet Office, and is being investigated for leaking to the press? You trust people with that kind of hiring record?
We must envisage worst case scenarios. Hitler was democratically elected. to return to my first point: every Govt. is corrupt in one way or another, because it is full of people.
Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion (Score:1, Interesting)
an audience abroad. so it's hardly a secret across Africa and Asia, for example, where it's given respect. only Americans with what appears to be a very black and white view of the role of the state have any difficulty understanding.
Re:i was thinking about them today... (Score:1, Interesting)
Incidentally, it most definitely says "British Citizen' in every passport I've had since the early-1980s.
Pilot scheme is a failure (Score:3, Interesting)
Each person has to register within a month paying a 50 pound fee sending their passport and a letter from their Employer.
This scheme has had problems mainly relating to the processing of applications, taking too long to return passports, failure to recognise that some workers are students and will work here in the summer only- much as students do all over the world.
however, there is a second process which has to be gone through too which is the issuing of a permanent National Insurance number.
Having provided the necessary evidence to the goverment once, to get the id card issued you would think that issuing a national insurance number should be automatic.
Nationality proven, identity proven, a legitimate job but no it seems the goverment doesn't trust its own ID card scheme and requires a second round of applications and interviews this time with the DWP department of work and pensions. they require passport, letter from employer
As was explained to me by the WRS Manager this scheme Establishes Nationality it doesn't establish Identity.
The scheme is improving however now they will check and return passports on reciept and record the recorded delivery number which is issued by the royal mail so now they will be able to know what they have done with peoples passports.
The issueing of permanent National Insurance Numbers is quite critical for non uk nationals,the employer in this country has the responsibility of ensuring someone he employees is legal and a number of employers are not prepared to take on someone without a permanent NI number, with the existence of a National database of legal non uk nationals being created it and the issue of the ID card it should make it easier for non uk nationals to find work but since the goverment will not recognise it as being proof of ID who will?
As a further example, where the Id card should make a difference is the provision of a general practioner (family Dr), as people employed in this country and paying taxes and national insurance the Id card could be used to establish that this person is entitled to treatment under the NHS.
currently there is complete confusion about how and when somebody is resident and eligible for treatment in the UK and no clear guidelines have been issued to GP's how to proceed.
(correction in one part of the country at least the NHS trust is looking to see if they can use the ID card as one simple proof of entitlement to NHS treatment. )
Now they are aware of its existence it could simplify an administrative nightmare for the NHS.
maybe soon there will be a positive side to the Id card scheme at least in one area. There are many other area's that could also benefit such as library services and provision of education to migrant workers children.
simply by simplifying the red tape.
I know some people might say why should britain provide its goverment provided services to migrant workers, well since these people pay uk taxes and pay UK National Insurance payments contributing to UK society why should they be excluded from the services they contribute to?
I started this post with a negative view of the Id card scheme, but if it can simplify the procedures to gain access to services or conversely be used to deny them to people wishing to abuse uk services then it may have a positive use.
The Id card doesnt in itself give anymore information than you are a legitimate member of uk society with rights given to uk residents.
sure there may well be a lot of data held about an individual all referenceable to the Id card but it doesnt mean that all your records will be available to any agency at random.
certainly the data protection act is in place to prevent abuses of this kind.