Delay tactics
(This is a corrected version of my earlier entry).
Tony Blair regarded ID cards as an election winner. He pledged that legislation to make them compulsory would form a . Under Gordon Brown it now looks clear that will be no such pledge.
Any decision on compulsory ID cards could be delayed until after 2020 even if ministers stay committed to the scheme and there is no change in government and technological problems, concerns about cost and shifting public attitudes don't cause yet more delays.
The home secretary was due to publish a timetable for introducing ID cards any week now. The Tories have now obtained what appears to be a leaked version of that timetable. It shows that although the first ID cards will be issued according to the old timetable (2008 for foreign nationals and 2009 for British citizens) the issuing of significant numbers of ID cards will be delayed from 2010 to 2012. This, in turn, delays any decision on compulsion.
Most people will be issued with ID cards when they apply for what are called "second generation passports" (ie those which carry our fingerprints). It is the introduction of these which looks set to be delayed until 2012. Ministers have promised a fresh vote in Parliament on whether to make ID cards compulsory and stated that that vote would only take place once voluntary take up was complete.
Since 80% of us have passports and since they have to be renewed every 10 years you can calculate that 80% of the British public would have an ID card within 10 years of these fingerprint passports being introduced ie 2022. Now, of course, it's possible that the advantages of having such a document may persuade some to apply earlier than necessary so that figure might be reached. Senior Home Office sources tell me it will be at least seven or eight years before compulsion is an issue - ie 2015 or later. In other words, if ministers can help it, it will not be an issue at the next election but, at the earliest, the one after that.
Ministers may well insist that this is nothing to do with politics and simply a reflection of a new assessment of the readiness of the systems for implementing ID cards. That is only a part of the story. Those EU countries in the are preparing to introduce fingerprint passports in 2009. Britain originally planned to go along with that timetable. It is a political decision not to do so which could save ministers money and Labour votes.
A recent for the Telegraph showed for the first time more voters against ID cards than in favour (48% against versus 43% in favour). When the ID scheme was first proposed by the Government in 2003, YouGov found 78% supported it and just 15% were opposed. There can be little doubt that this has followed the .
Do not assume, however, that this means that ID cards are being abandoned completely. Ministers say that Tony Blair sold ID cards as good in themselves whereas Gordon Brown wants to stress the problems for which they may be a solution eg illegal immigration, terrorism and checking the identity of public servants in sensitive posts. He may be content to introduce the scheme slowly and at a lower cost believing that the public will slowly come to accept the need and the value of documents which confirm their identity.
PS: This is not the first time ID cards have been delayed. In 2004 the then Home Secretary David Blunkett stated that "within three years (ie 2007) I hope that we'll have started implementing it". They still have not. He went on to say that "within seven years (ie 2011) we'd start to move towards a position where people would have generally, across the whole population, have got an ID card. At that point we've agreed that we'll present a report to Parliament on how it's working, the objectives of compulsion and at that point we'll have a vote in both Houses of Parliament."
(Source: Breakfast with Frost - 25 April 2004)
The ID Cards Bill was delayed by the 2005 election which meant the Act setting up ID cards was not passed until 2006. The Strategic Action Plan published that year stated that:
- from 2008 the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) will issue biometric identification to foreign nationals (it still will).
- from 2009 the Identity and Passport Service (IPS) will issue ID cards for British citizens (it still will).
And:
- from 2010 IPS will issue significant volumes of ID cards alongside British passports (that is what looks set to change).
I'm 
Comments
Put ID cards in the manifesto. Don't put ID cards in the manifesto.
Who believes what politicians put in their manifestos?
Ministers say that Tony Blair sold ID cards as good in themselves whereas Gordon Brown wants to stress the problems for which they may be a solution eg illegal immigration, terrorism and checking the identity of public servants in sensitive posts.
Well, that's a small step forward, I suppose.
This is a fascinating commentary on evidence-based policymaking. On this issue, for Blair, EBP presumably meant 'evidence that the voters will like it, whether or not it's in their interest, the cute little lemmings that they are'. One would like to think that for Brown it means he wants actual evidence that ID cards will help, but I suspect it's merely a presentational change. However, if voters are to buy the argument, he may have to address the evidence of benefit; if they don't buy it, then it's hard to see where he will go unless he recovers a lot of authority.
We still have a long way to go before we have a country that evaluates issues rationally.
I'd like to see some delay on rolling ID cards out so some rationality can enter the discussion. Apart from more careful consideration of the systems a more pressing issue is rolling out a uniform data and access security policy. While people beat their chests over centralisation too much individuality and hands-off leads to confusion and foot-dragging. Behind all of this I'm still of the view that the contrarian, uncooperative, and short-term British approach needs tempering.
Speaking as a software developer, I'm often puzzled by the cost and time projects like this soak up. Yes, I've heard all the "big iron" arguments but when a large prize is offered to a small but talented team they can produce wonders in a worryingly short space of time. If the government threw, say, £3 million at an ID system "X Prize", I bet it would be done in a month, cost a fraction of what the vested interests produce, and be a quality piece of work. Say it ain't so.
One thing I admire about the Americans is how they can get behind a big project, pull together, and wrestle the puppy to completion. Reading a recent article on the process of bringing Star Wars to the screen I was impressed by the clarity of vision, quality of talent, and sheer doggedness in making it happen. The rest, as we all know, is history. Britain needs a little more of that attitude if it's to develop industry, opportunity, and a bigger money mattress.
Given that among many other things, the Lisbon Treaty will enshrine Home Affairs and Justice into EU competence, it is only a matter of time before our masters in Brussels decree that everyone in the EU must have (and carry - that's their style after all)an identical ID card. It will matter not a fig what our politicians or the general British public think. Of course, the Lisbon Treaty does not have any major constitutional significance so we won't be given the promised vote on its ratification. Watching things unfold at Westminster is just like watching turkeys voting for Xmas, but the difference is that no one told the turkeys what Xmas meant for them. The sad, self-interested politcos sprawled languidly on the benches in the chamber will get an almightly shock when they realise that they have voted themselves out of a job, and I will make sure I rub it in when I am standing next to them in the enforced queue to be issued with my shiny new EU citizen card.
I think ID cards for Government staff working in sensitive posts is a good idea. However, it does occur to me that the 11,000 illegal immigrants who gained Government security posts must have undergone some vetting before they were employed (such as evidence of the right to work in the UK as the current law requires). It further occurs to me then that 11,000 ID cards would have been issued to people to whom they should not have been issued and could consequently have entitled such people access to all manner of places.
If, on the other hand, ID cards would not have been issued because the legally required checks would have been carried out, then I'm starting to think that some employers who have innocently employed illegals and been prosecuted for it might very well be entitled to become upset at the bias of law enforcement - ie one law for them and one for Government employers.
Well I'll be changing my passport before the ID cards come in.
Perhaps thats the idea, those who care will rush out and buy a new passport (even if they don't need one) and the Treasury rakes in a nice wad of cash.
I think you'll find ID cards were consistently unpopular pre-2001. Therefore you cannot say they are unpopular 'for the first time'. The government regularly re-writes history, but there's no need for you to do it as well.
The implementation date has been put back simply until the recent data loss problems have become distant memories. Cynical politics from cynical politicians. What else do you expect?
Even for foreign nationals the ID card rollout is fairly protracted with issuing to permanent residents not starting until 2011 (if I understand the reports correctly). I didn't see any indication when this was expected to be complete.
Should the parties change side of the house before the roll out, we may never find out Gordon's views on compulsion
A dithering we will go...
This is a more complex issue than it appears. As someone with dual nationality I can be UK or non-UK as suits the circumstance.
As it's a question of *identity* passports should have nothing to do with it as they are a result of establishing the identity that governments are seeking.
As I am a citizen of 2 European countries, I can only wonder about dual nationals from non-EU countries.
"YouGov found 78% supported it and just 15% were opposed. There can be little doubt that this has followed the loss of discs, laptops and other supposedly secure data."
That's a bit of a simplification of the matter. Studies show that the prime driver in changing people from supporting to opposing ID cards is how much they know about the identity register that will sit behind the cards.
No-one really minds a card with name, DOB and maybe a fingerprint stored on it, but there is significant opposition to having the government keeping a file on every single citizen and tracking their activities through a system of identity checks.
This is not helped by the fact that all of the supposed benefits of this scheme simply crumble away under the slightest scrutiny. The government will be the only ones who benefit from this scheme while the taxpayer will foot the bill and bear all the risks and inconvenience.
By the time we add in card and biometric readers and the central database, you are talking about 2-500 quid per person in the UK.
That is 30 billion pounds up front.
To that we add the cost of running it.
Changes when you move house, marry, etc will cost huge amounts.
Put it another way...
Which would make Britain a safer place :
30,000 extra police +
30,000 nurses +
30,000 firefighters +
30,000 doctors +
30,000 fully crewed ambulances+
Increasing the budget of MI5 by 500%
Or ID cards ?
For those who believe the Iraq war was a sound way of making Britain secure. For the cost of ID cards we could have a new Iraq war every 3 months. In real terms the Falklands war cost only the same as 6 months of the ID card fiasco.
In my view, the whole system is back-to-front in that one should not have to carry an identity card but be prepared to say, give a saliva sample upon reasonable request in a given context.
That sample should be analysed, possible by some portable equipment and the resulting DNA 'bar-code' referenced to a 'criminal' database to establish the identity of the person.
After all, why should you be required to identify yourself if you are not suspected of committing some offence?
It may be the case that people might 'volunteer' their personal DNA code for a Government database, for example, to ease the obtainment of 'benefits'.
I simply do not see the case for compelling English people to carry an ID card.
In fact, it is a very un-English notion but since when have the English actually governed themselves?
Not for a long time.
That is such a cunning plan Bob Jones @ 6, you could put a tail on it and call it a fox.....so obviously Blair might have thought of it... but not this work experience Govt.
Its quite instructive to watch at the moment. If GB believed that ID cards were a good idea he would clunking the system into place. As he doesn't he's 'delaying' the project - but I think the main reason is that he thinks it would be controversial in an election year - and he's quite right. There is NO evidence to support a( that they would work and b) that the data would be protected properly.
But I agree with the comments that if the EU wants a common ID card then under the 'treaty' of Lisbon thats what we will have to implement - so perhaps he's waiting for that?
My ID just isn't something to be splattered all over the face of a compulsory card. It's my personal identity and it should be kept that way, unless I choose otherwise.
Besides, when we can't trust the government to keep our address, phone number and bank details safe - how can we possibly trust them to look after our biometric data?
I for one will refuse to have one, a passport is good enough.
Well I'm feeling a bit silly now. I renewed my passport last year, even though it had a couple of years left before it expired, so that I wouldn't get caught up in all the fingerprinting which I thought was due to start this year. Guess I needn't have bothered.
Let's just hope that these delays are the first step toward the only sensible solution of abandoning this crazy plan altogether.
They put a promise to give the electorate a vote on the Lisbon Treaty/Constitution in their manifesto. A manifesto commitment on ID cards will prove equally worthless.
If UK ID cards are able to be used to travel within the EU (as is case with ID cards from places like Germany) then they may get a surge of popularity when people who go on holiday to France/Spain etc realize that hey only need a a £30 ID card and not a £90 passport ... of course, this would doubtless blow a hole in the IPS budgets
Whilst I have no issues with ID Cards persay, I think its a blessing that there arrival has been delayed.
The governement and their many agencies have already demonstrated how careless and lax they are with the data and details that they hold on us.
I think they should get their security in order and actually prove they are capable of Data Protection before we start providing the information required for ID Cards.
Could someone explain to me why, given that you get the ID card when you apply for a passport and that carrying the ID card is not proposed to be compulsory, that you shouldn't just turn up with the passport as proof of ID? What is the additional benefit of having the ID card?
Maybe I am a cynic and conspiracy theorist, but surely the card only makes sense in the context of universal compulsory possession of ID?
If the largest democracy in the world has I.D. cards, why should it make us less democratic?
If we do not have an elected head of state, (who happen to be of german blood), why do we not accept the fact that we are not as democratic as the USA?
Is it not a fact, that we only like the USA when they bail us out from being crushed in 2 world wars?
ID cards work in America and the rest of Europe and they should work here. Hypocrisy is not a reason to be different!
The painfully slow phasing in the introduction of ID cards seems at least partially designed to make the transition to a compulsory system less stark and harder to resist.
Ministers never acknowledge that the introduction of ID cards fundamentally changes the relationship between citizen and state. The surveillance permitted by ID cards makes the citizen's behaviour vastly more visible to the state and therefore allows the government useful information with which to "manage" that behaviour. This is, after all, a Government which has shown a quite unprecedented relish for interfering in our lives - from diet to parenting to faith and a whole host of other issues about which previous Government s would have blushed even to inquire.
Because this increased surveillance represents increased state power, the issue is one of great constitutional significance and should therefore be addressed head on with a discussion of: The purpose of the system (a remarkably slippery question) who has access to the data (only the most tightly vetted individuals or virtually any state employee depending on whom you ask) and what safeguards would be in place to prevent the state from abusing its increased powers of surveillance (A matter upon which I have never heard any minister answer a single question).
Instead of an honest debate of this type, the government is committed to introducing ID cards by salami slicing the population and starting with those least able to resist the introduction. Immigrants and children first then members of sensitive professions who want to keep their jobs and a slow, steady stream of people renewing their passports. Then services can start getting designed around the ID card making it progressively harder to be outside the system as both public and private sectors require the card for more and more things. When the time comes to mop up the last few hold outs by making the cards compulsory it will be difficult to live without one and, if there were any sort of public debate at all, so much money would have been invested in the new public and private systems that it would be possible for the government to say the matter was inevitable.
This is the politics of cowardice. If MPs thought that ID cards were really a good idea then they would debate the issue on the level and pledge to make them compulsory. The fact that they won't reveals their grudging acknowledgment that most domestic support for the system is built on carefully fostered misunderstandings (such as the notion that the proposed system is remotely like France's or that it can be secured, or that it will help with the fight against paedophilia/terrorism/feral youth etc)
Everyone should grow up, ID cards are necessary, only people who have something to hide will not agree with ID cards.
Paul Travers @ 03.27pm
'Maybe I am a cynic and conspiracy theorist'
Maybe you are Paul, but government supporters would also have down as 'contrarian' and 'uncooperative'!
Just to address an slight oversimplification of Malcolm's point (4)...
The EU isn't a separate entity to the UK: we are a constituent part of it and as such have a big say in policy output. Our politicians WOULD, in the Council of Ministers, have control over any Justice and Home Affairs issue as big as a European wide ID system. Newsflash but the Commission cannot just enact laws, it only has the right of initiation, so who exactly are these 'masters in Brussels'? Our elected politicians! What really troubles me is that our politicians seem increasingly to use the EU to make unpopular laws they would otherwise be unable to pass domestically, ID cards being a possible case in point, and then get off the hook by blaming the EU.
Dear Nick,
We do not need Identy Cards, as every one who does not need to know has our particulars on Compact Disc.
No proof that ID cards will work.Huge costs involved and the most worrying aspect is the collection of all the information in incompetant government hands,no thanks I prefer to use the means of identification such as pasport,driving,marriage etc.I do not buy into the terorist threats as the reason to spend the vast sums of money,besides are we not spending mega sums already on data collection.
I don't understand what the problem of having an ID card is. I don't even understand what is the problem of it being compulsory. It's a very good and practical way to demonstrate who you are. Now you have all sort of different ways to show who you are, for example, to a bank when you open an account: utility bills, passports, birth certificates, etc. An ID card is just a more convenient way.
The goverment already has a lot of information about the people: HMRC tax and NI database, your local Council Tax office, etc, etc.
Re Albert's comment at 24.
The USA does not have a nationwide ID card scheme in place, let alone a compulsory one.
At the next general election (and succeeding ones if necessary) It will take a pretty bizarre set of policies to keep my vote from the party that guarantees to torpedo this ludicrous project once and for all.
@24 Albert,
First of all, I was wondering who this democracy was you were talking about, then I realised you were talking about the USA!
Good bit of irony there, but to get to your main point, there is no true national identity card in the United States of America, in the sense that there is no federal agency with nationwide jurisdiction that directly issues such cards to all American citizens.
All legislative attempts to create one have failed due to tenacious opposition from liberal and conservative politicians alike, who regard the national identity card as the mark of a totalitarian society.
So perhaps, shut up?
Has anyone noticed the amount of sensitive data going missing recently? This is nothing new, the only reason it is being highlighted just now is to reinforce the argument to bring in ID cards. Every step closer to this we get is an infringement on our freedom. I don't know about you but I like being able to walk around without the government being able to locate me on a computer screen with the click of a button using a high resolution satellite imaging system. That may sound ridiculous but as soon as we have ID cards that will be a possibility.
In a sense, I hope the gov keeps on losing personal data, if it'll stave off those blasted ID cards. But what a shame it takes such news to persuade enough people that the authorities can't be trusted with such material.
But it's not just competent stewardship we should question. It's the whole attitude of government to ordinary people. Under Labour we've seen the rich prospering at the expense of the poor, with no real political will to put that right. We've seen them doing their utmost to claw back money from the unemployed and disabled. And we've seen them invade a sovereign Arab state on a false pretext, virtually begging terrorists to take a pop at us - i.e. those of us down here who have to use public transport.
In other words, Labour doesn't care what happens to most of us. So why put any faith in the notion that these cards are for OUR benefit? We may feel that it's a good step to there being no hiding place for evil people, but if government itself is evil, there'll be no hiding place for the rest of us either.
"...if we introduce an ID cards scheme and reduce identity fraud that makes a major difference to the costs of government, to the costs of doing business." Tony Blair, 18/1/06
Then why are they planning to charge us for them? Surely it's all going to pay for itself? Or is this yet another stealth tax, i.e. we the public finance the cards while business reaps the rewards?
And why are they planning ANYTHING controversial so far into the future? Where's the humble qualification "if we're still in power by then"?
I guess the future's Tory - they're not reknowned for their social conscience either, but I don't suppose it'll be much different, except that at least they're saying they're against ID cards, which should take them a little while to gloss over.
Even for foreign nationals the ID card rollout is fairly protracted with issuing to permanent residents not starting until 2011 (if I understand the reports correctly). I didn't see any indication when this was expected to be complete.
I've always enjoyed the fact that the Home Office loves to cite the Schebgen Acquis as a reason for introducing ID cards whilst simultaneously refusing to afford British citizens of the treaty's benefits of Schengen's free travel provisions.
They're constantly blaming other countries to disguise their own authoritarian tendencies, previously we had to have ID cards because of the American US VISIT programme. I guess it'll be the Chinese who'll get the blame next.
It's odd that Brown wants to stress how ID cards will help fight terrorism when Spain's ID cards didn't stop the Madrid bombings, and the 9/11 airplanes were boarded by people using their real identities.
Illegal immigrants aren't going to be stopped either - the "Catch me if you can" fraudster is on record as saying the new cards will be eminently forgeable and I dare say you will be able to get a forgery sooner than you can get a real one!
It's just a huge waste of money, unless you are one of the many IT companies sniffing around for the contracts!
@24 Albert,
First of all, I was wondering who this democracy was you were talking about, then I realised you were talking about the USA!
Good bit of irony there, but to get to your main point, there is no true national identity card in the United States of America, in the sense that there is no federal agency with nationwide jurisdiction that directly issues such cards to all American citizens.
All legislative attempts to create one have failed due to tenacious opposition from liberal and conservative politicians alike, who regard the national identity card as the mark of a totalitarian society.
So perhaps, shut up?
Albert No. 24 - Are you saying that India, which is the world's largest democracy, has ID Cards ? That would be news, and a surprise, to me..
I would suggest the best way to protect your identity is not to give the government any personal information.
Pity they don't lose manifestos like they lose data as they don't stick to them anyway so why should I take what they say at face value?
If anyone else did this trick it would be called deceit and turncoats, and no one can get lower than that.
Albert, since when has America had ID cards? I'm an American myself (though I left 4 years ago) and I was never required to hold an ID card. Neither are any of my family (who still live in America).
The fact is, the government is incapable of holding personal data securely and I am totally opposed to ID cards, especially being a foreign national who comes under the group being issued with them within the next year. Why on earth does the government need all my biometric data, when they already have as much data about me as they would ever need. Maybe if they took a look at how much they are charging foreigner's to legally get a visa and work on their immigration laws, there wouldn't be such a problem with illegal immigrants. The Home Office is charging me £950 to apply for permanent residence and all they do it copy my document, look through my application and stick a bit of paper in my passport. How does that cost £950?
I wonder how they'd like it if I refuse to give up my information for this ridiculous scheme?
@Albert (#24)
India is the largest democracy in the world (by population). They are in the process of implementing ID cards.
The US doesn't have ID cards anyway.
re 24 & 32:
Since when has the USA been the largest democracy???
India, anyone?
If I want to prove my identity I (and anybody else) can simply show a passport.
Labour's proposed ID cards have nothing to do proving identities -- their purpose, in tandem with the National Identity Registrar, is to record, monitor and control people's daily transactions. No other country in the world has identity cards like this, not even North Korea or Saudi Arabia!
I will never vote for a party that seeks to introduce such cards -- and expects me to pay for them, as well!
First an ID Card, followed by and ID chip implanted in the skin. Take control of our own life, say no to the ID card.
Nick,
when you say that the government will introduce ID cards for "foreign nationals", you really should make clear that this refers only to people from outside the European Economic Area and only for people who declare an intention to stay for 6 months or longer.
The government are keen to gloss over these facts in the hope that they can gain some unjustified support from people who are worried about immigration. That doesn't mean that you have to help them to do so.
Re: 24
India is the world's largest democracy.
To be honest, my response to this is simple. I will renew my passport before they start issuing cards. If the passport has a chip in it, 10s in a microwave will sort that out. If they try to force me to get an ID card through passport renewal, I will renew my passport at one of the less well equipped British embassies in another country. And if at any point they manage to try and make me take an ID card, I will refuse the DNA swab/fingerprinting. If they force me against my will, I will publish my fingerprints and DNA profile on the web, and cut up my card.
Civil disobedience, its the only way to deal with stalinist governments like Gordon's.
Diego, post 32. Have you been living in a vacuum?
The government has shown itself criminally inept at keeping the data it has safe so why can anyone trust it over ID cards.
Some more discs were lost it has been reported today.
So if ID cards are so ABSOLUTELY VITAL for fighting terrorism, social security fraud, identity theft, illegal immigration and the decline in the England football team - I'm not sure about that last, but I doubt it's any more unlikely than the others - then why does it somehow not matter if the implementation drags out a few more years?
If they really are this vital, they'd be being implemented as close to immediately as is possible.
Since they're *not* being implemented as soon as is possible, the only logical conclusion is that Ministers have all been lying about why they want them. Again, and again, and again...
To Brendon @ 26.
Wake up! Do you really want all of your financial, domestic and private affairs easily available to anyone who can break one single system?
If there is one thing we've learned in the past weeks with CDs, etc. going missing it is that we all have something to hide!!
Albert at 24, America isn't the largest democracy, I think you'll find India is a bit larger.
ID Cards will not work here. The Madrid bombers carried ID cards. That didn't stop them, and ID cards won't stop anyone doing anything. With the fastest growing DNA database in the world, which also includes innocent children, biometric cards and constant CCTV survellience, I am very glad I'm 60 yrs of age and not growing up in this society for it makes 1984 look innocent in comparison.
Conveniently after the next election date!
Perhaps with a financial meltdown and a housing market crisis Gordon doesn't fancy a perfect storm of dissent whilst he desperately tries to cling to power.
The biggest problem with ID cards is the technical implementation. Things like how personal information will be updated and checked for errors. What redress will there be for people whose details are copied down incorrectly? Or what communication technology is in place at key locations to make it possible to check an ID card against the central database, whilst allowing the large quantities of data to remain secure. Or how often ID cards be checked? Too infrequently, and there's no point in carrying the things: too often, and we end up with queues and delays, especially as biometric scanners are not a wholly reliable technology at the moment and may well throw up false negatives and positives.
It's rather worrying that the government spends large amounts of time explaining all the good the ID cards will do, without ever saying much about how the things are actually going to work.
i won't carry an id card. not only can the government not be trusted to look after the information correctly, but it won't do any good in terms of dropping crime rates or the amount of illegal immigrants. information kleptomaniacs, and they're not getting mine!
To be honest, my response to this is simple. I will renew my passport before they start issuing cards. If the passport has a chip in it, 10s in a microwave will sort that out. If they try to force me to get an ID card through passport renewal, I will renew my passport at one of the less well equipped British embassies in another country. And if at any point they manage to try and make me take an ID card, I will refuse the DNA swab/fingerprinting. If they force me against my will, I will publish my fingerprints and DNA profile on the web, and cut up my card.
Civil disobedience, its the only way to deal with stalinist governments like Gordon's.
With regard to post 52: Exactly. Lies, lies, lies.
Anyone ever seen equilibrium? That's where we are headed if this sort of thing is allowed.
i won't carry an id card. not only can the government not be trusted to look after the information correctly, but it won't do any good in terms of dropping crime rates or the amount of illegal immigrants. information kleptomaniacs, and they're not getting mine!
Everyone's missing a point here. Comparisons with other countries who 'already have ID cards', fail to make the comparison with the number of pieces of information which HM government want it to carry.
Its over fifty just to start with.
How long before its 100..? 200..? 500..??
Just imagine (and it WILL happen) when a disc with information on (say) twenty million citizens goes missing - and really DOES fall into the wrong hands..!
The level of paranoia on here is amazing really. Being able to prove that you are who you say your are is a mechanism to defend personal liberty, not infringe it. You can bet your boots that whatever Dodgy Dave says now, if ever he (or more likely one of his successors) ever gets back into No 10 the system will still be retained or introduced - though of course it will be re-branded as an 'iPersonal Assurance Device' or something.
I wouldn't trust this government to keep any pledge or promise. Ever.
Say no to ID cards.
Nick,
Please make it clear that very few foreign nationals will be issued with ID cards under the current legislation. No-one from another EU country can be forced to have one, and they also won't be issued to anyone from a non-visa country (such as the USA or Japan) who's here for less than three months. My guesstimate is that at any given time only 5% of the foreigners on UK soil will have an ID card. Meanwhile, 80% of British citizens will be forced to sign up for these loathsome items when they renew their passports.
The Home Office is appealing to latent xenophobia by trying to imply that most foreigners in the UK will have UK ID cards. In fact, almost none will. Next time you talk to your "Senior Home Office sources", please press them on the exact percentage of foreigners who will be forced to have ID cards. They must have an estimate, but they aren't saying - exactly the kind of essential detail that has to be flushed out to inform the growing public debate.
Bloggers have - by some measure - been unfair in making reference to the loss of data by civil servants. I'll tell you why: David Milliband, the Foreign Secretary said: you can't legislate against people losing things or them being stolen. He said it with such smug satisfaction that I think he didn't realise the utter complacency of the comment. I recall as incident at a place of work whereby an innocent mistake could have cost a company hundreds of thousands of pounds in damages. The person who made the mistake said that "mistakes can happen". That's true - but that isn't an excuse for a mistake to be made; even Peter Hain made a mistake and was described as "incompetent" by Gordon. Until the Government gets its act together and becomes competent, and starts to get systems it implements right and makes sure that those that are in place work properly (the costly failure over tax credit systems have exceeded Lamont's Black Wednesday) then an all-inclusive database dealing with personal data needs to be kept on hold.
ID cards work in America
Albert, you are seriously misinformed if you think that the United States has compulsory ID Cards. In fact the idea of compulsory ID Cards would be anathema to the the very large constituency of libertarians in the US. It is certainly true that driving licences are commonly used as photo ID and that there are attempts to standardise the information held state driving licences 'REAL ID' but none of this amounts to the sort of compulsory ID system that the Labour party would like to impose on us. Americans are by and large sceptical of big government and would have dismissed this silly authoritarian ID Card years ago.
Again and again .. the card is not the issue. The National Identity Register is the point ... everytime your card is "produced", for whatever reason, a new entry is made in the register. All of your daily activities will be tracked. Plus additional "required" documents can be added to the list of those to be maintained in the register. And guess what, if someone in the IPS mistypes an entry in your records, you are responsible for getting it corrected and pay for the privilege also. But the first time you know about it is as you're about to board a plane to go on your annual holiday. Meanwhile, your bank account, benefits, driving licence and a host of other every day matters are FROZEN.
Proof of id is "required" in a number of instances nowadays - more and more as a result of knee jerk reactions to some event and adopting a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Over regulation at its worst.
Data is held by banks, supermarkets, etc. But you can change bank, you could revert to using cash, you could choose not to use credit cards or supermarket loyalty cards. Choice - the magic word in some areas of Govt interference - but not here it seems.
Personal data is sold by the Govt now also. Our vehicles are tracked across the country. If a supermarket wants to charge you for overstaying your parking, they can get your home address from the DVLA.
Card reading will be contactless. You won't know that your card has been read. The new passports already have an embedded transponder chip.
What would Stalin and Hitler have given for such a system.
Last-minute attempts by online activists to halt an electronic ID card failed Tuesday when the U.S. Senate unanimously voted to impose a sweeping set of identification requirements on Americans.
If the act’s mandates take effect in May 2008, as expected, Americans will be required to obtain federally approved ID cards with "machine readable technology" that abides by Department of Homeland Security specifications. Anyone without such an ID card will be effectively prohibited from travelling by air or Amtrak, opening a bank account, or entering federal buildings.
Let me get this striaght.
ID cards are unpopular (a massive vote loser), expensive and will not work.
It does not make sense that any government of the people would continue to want to implement such on their citizens.
WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE?
"MICHAEL wrote:
Let me get this striaght.
ID cards are unpopular (a massive vote loser), expensive and will not work.
It does not make sense that any government of the people would continue to want to implement such on their citizens.
WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE?"
Exactly what I was wondering. Either they are deluded, do not care or there is something sinister going on - or all three.
It is tiresome that some people still come out with the ' if you have nothing to hide' cliche. Still more troubling that some know so little about the governments plans, that they think this is just a harmless card with your name on it.
*Sigh*
I will never submit to this. EVER.