By Andy McCue, 26 November 2003 16:00
NEWS Compulsory biometric ID cards and a central database of all UK citizens could be created by 2010 under controversial legislation unveiled by the government in the Queen's speech today.
As predicted, Home Secretary David Blunkett fought off opposition from some cabinet ministers opposed to the ID card scheme to get the draft 'Identity Cards Bill' tabled for the next session of Parliament.
Underpinning the ID cards will be a central database storing information on all UK citizens, which can be used by public agencies including the police and NHS to check someone's ID.
The ID card will contain a piece of biometric information, most likely an iris or fingerprint scan, and will be combined with passports and driving licences, which will have a biometric element by 2008, according to the draft Bill.
The compulsory nature of the card, which will cost £35, will be decided in two phases. The government will have the power to mandate that an ID card is produced to use certain public services – an element retained from Blunkett's original 'entitlement' card plans.
More worrying for privacy campaigners is that the government will have the power after five years to make the carrying or production of ID cards compulsory.
As outlined previously by the Home Office it is estimated the basic system will cost £180m to set-up, finally rising to some £3bn.
David Blunkett said in a statement that ID cards will help "tackle the challenges of the 21st century" including terrorism, organised crime and illegal immigration.
"The draft Identity Cards Bill is about taking the difficult decisions now needed to prepare Britain for the future. It will set out our plans for an incremental approach to the introduction of a compulsory national identity cards scheme," he said.
Security company Ubizen, which worked on Belgium's electronic ID card scheme, said a biometric card will not tackle terrorism and crime. Bart Vansevenant, director of security strategy at Ubizen, told silicon.com it will not stop international terrorists who would probably enter the UK on a foreign passport anyway.
"You will not solve terrorism or immigration by introducing biometrics to a card. Why put biometrics on an ID card? It costs you a hell of a lot of money and there is equipment, support and administration problems," he said.
Vansevenant also questioned the need for a central database, as police and border control officers would be able to verify the biometric on the card to the person carrying it using an eye or fingerprint scanner. He said a central database will be a tempting target for hackers and that there should at best only be the need for a 'blacklist' database of criminals and suspects to check biometric scans against.
Comments
There are 45 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
Don't you just love the decisiveness, clarity and "up-front"-ness of the Government?
"We're going to have this card, but it's not an ID card it's an entitlement card, no, it's an ID card but it'll only be for immegrants or maybe it won't but it won't be compulsory or maybe it will........"
And again not even the slightest hint as to how access to irrelevant information in this central database might be controlled, or maybe it's OK if, say a customs officer has access to you're medical records? (OK extreme example. You'd hope that at least medical records would be a little more restricted, although.....)
And as usual totally ignoring both public opinion ("Oh those weren't objections from REAL members of the public, that was just a petition!"), an experts including apparantly those who have actually DONE this!
How rabid is this guy about this? Boy, I'll really enjoy shelling out £100 (including cost overruns - this IS a government project after all) for someone's pet project that will successfully perform none of it's avowed purposes!
2. David Ramsay
OK so I have to report to a George Orwell centre to have my bio's measured. How are the idiots standing behind the machine going to be sure I am who I say I am?
Its easy enough to get ID at the moment so all someone has to do is to get several different ones up front and nobody would be the wiser!
If the whole system is dependent on the accuracy of the validation and verification of the individual in front of the equipment is easy then we wouldn't need ID cards in the first place.
If the care which will be given to this validation is the same as that currently employed then forget the scheme as it is worthless.
If they increase the validation required then come back in about two hundred years as it will take well over a week for each person!
3. anonymous
Personally I think it should be given the go-ahead then it probably will lessen the immigrant situation.
4. anonymous
The experts say that it's a waste of time. The Public are sceptical, fearful and generally don't want it. But when did that ever bother Tony's Cronies? They only listen to themseselves and their tame yes-men.
Once it becomes compulsory to cary them what's next? Use them instead of credit cards? Hey - instead of cash! I'm sorry for those who haven't seen this coming for centuries - but as a Christian, the book of Revelation says that in the end times no-one will be able to buy or sell without the mark of the beast. I'm not prone to hyping things up, but I've believed for a long time that's related in some way related to technology. It's already available and being tested.
5. Rob
Making ID's cards that are digital in pupose is the easiest way to make Identity theft easier, how long did it take for someone to crack DVD encoding on Discs? Yet if you want to copy a protected video you have to have a box that'll do all the sync'ing of the signal. Digital makes life easier for people that want to crack/hack/whatever.
Seeing as even the Intelligence/Secret Service agencies can't hang on to their laptops what hope has the government got of keeping our data secure.
Who's to say that the human who has access to all these files doesn't become corrupt and starts selling them to crims like shop assistants have in the past with your credit card receipts?
6. Karl Buckland
So it's likely to be compulsory but I'm going to have to pay for it...but I don't want one why should I pay?
Just think of the bright future for victims of crime, not only do they steal your wallet but they cut off a finger and gouge out an eye too so they can copy your details.
Then with the usual level of accuracy that the government employs you've got a 50/50 chance of being allowed to carry on being you.
"I'm sorry Sir/Madam you can't possibly be you, you've already claimed your benefits this week according to our computer".
And a database all about me, why bother with the cost? Just phone any double glazing company or credit card supplier they <i>apparently</i> know all about me. More than I do!
Yeah I really want those companies and any teenager with a bit of pc knowledge to be able to get a full list of my life by logging on to a "secure" database.
Then there's the enforcement, once it become compulsory to carry them (no if there!) my income is going to dramatically drop because I'll be fined regularly I have a terrible memory.
Still if I'm lucky I'll be fitted up for a crime I didn't commit by corrupt Police with access to my finger prints etc. despite the fact I've got no criminal record. Then I'll be locked up and not need to carry a card.
Has anyone seen "The net"?
What about a guarentee, other purchases have them? If I pay out for a card and they DON'T stop illegal immigration and DON'T reduce crime can I claim my money back? Do we get reciepts?
7. Steve Bradley
Best Idea this Governments had.
Only those with something to hide have something to worry about. £35 is a bit steep especially for large familes but even those on benifits could manage this with a little help.
8. Bob Robinson
I think Vansevenant is rather short sighted and narrow minded in his view on a central database.
This is potentially the best piece of forward thinking to come from any government in years. The database in one location means only one place to update for all purposes. Only one place to check for all purposes. The service could be made available on a confirmation only basis for credit card, banking and many other services needing positive confirmation that a holder of a card is who they purport to be. The biggest problem will be the original setting up and checking for duplicate applications.
9. anonymous
The whole ID card proposal is such a flawed idea from day one as described in your article - and not only that, it has the potential to actually help criminals and terrorists as everyone will blindly accept these cards as proof of identify. It is not beyond the wit of man to 'glue' on fake finger prints, or hack into the database to change personal details and use that to access buildings etc. So are ID cards a good idea - well yes I can see the benefits in that they have alot of potential to help irradicate some fraud, but on the No side, there are 3 main reasons against it:
1) Blatent violation of personal freedom
2) It won't stop terrorism at all as the article states, and as I point out it may actually help terrorism
3) It wastes millions upon millions of pounds that could be spent usefully on public services, or preferably left in everyones pockets to spend as they choose
10. anonymous
The idea of such a vast control mechanism being set up by the government brings to mind "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". How can we stop this "incremental" domination and control?
11. Phil Busby
Since we all already carry this biometric data (DNA, Iris, Fingerprint, etc.) why not develop systems that can read biometrics rather than charging us for a card to translate from biometric to numeric.
12. anonymous
I am deeply concerned about the security implications. My Driving Licence is in my married name and address as, due to domestic violence, I have changed my identity but my ex has access to the DVLA computers through his employment. I was advised it was "unsafe" to change and this has been deemed acceptable mitigating circumstances by the courts. My passport and other documents are completely seperate. In this instance anyone like me would have data about them shared by agencies and our own right to a life free from fear or intimitation would be removed: the law is supposed to protect not to aid harm.
13. Andrew Robb
I thought that there was already a system in many international airports that already tracks known terrorists by iris patterns.
Passports with photographs are not generally accepted as proof of identity - you need a utility bill or two for that. How is the true identity of a biometric card holder going to be established before issue?
14. Simon Hobson
OK, lets assume that sooner or later there will be a security lapse in the system (anyone want to argue that there never will be ?).
When someone gets hold of my biometric data, how do we (collectively) revoke that data and replace it ? Will I have to have my fingerprint surgically altered, or even more drastic, my iris pattern ?
And then there is the matter of practicalities. It may not bother Mr Blunket, but there's no way I'm letting someone shine a laser into my eyes without a 100% guarantee of safety (which of course no-one can give).
15. Dick Vinegar
What is it with you lot, always knocking ID cards? Nearly all polls on the matter give massive support to them unless the CivLib lobby circulate their supporters. European countries seem happy with them most of the time.
I carried one until I was 22 and felt no pain. Nor did any of my contemporaries, including Aldermaston marchers, fellow travellers and CP members. Life was just easier with ID, particularly in wartime. If you had one, the police had no reason to hassle you.
If you hadn't, you deserved what you got.
The knee-jerk reaction against them seems to me a yoof teenage-scribbler thing.
16. Bernice
I just think the whole idea stinks!
The people who won't be affected by this are going to be the profetional criminals and terrorists.
I expect we will see some protest the sort that makes the poll tax riots look like a picnc in the park
17. anonymous
Excellent idea. Portugal and Spain already have a system of photo and fingerprint, so why not the UK, Canada etc.
18. anonymous
Passive resistance is what is required with this one. The public don't really want it, the current government - or any other for that matter - is high likely to make a botch of it and don't appreciate or recognise the issues surrounding what they propose.
So, if the population of the UK refuse to take it on board, what are they going to do, fine all of us, throw all of us in the clink... probably :(
19. anonymous
Does it not worry anyone that this is getting worryingly close to "The Mark Of The Beast" which will according to the book of Revelation be required to buy and sell.
20. Karl Buckland
"Personally I think it should be given the go-ahead then it probably will lessen the immigrant situation.": but experts have said it wont? In fact it may help immigrants to stay here if these cards are totally beleived in and are easy to obtain on the black market (which they will be).
"Excellent idea. Portugal and Spain already have a system of photo and fingerprint, so why not the UK, Canada etc.": But did it make a difference to the immigration and crime in those countries? or is it that countries such as Canada are a lot more strict on immigration than the UK so didn't need it for this reason? (I have looked at moving to Canada but I don't speak French aswell as English, I don't have an engineering qualification, and I don't already have a job over there, none of these are required to get into the UK).
"Only those with something to hide have something to worry about.": yes I have somehting to hide, my details from a corrupt society. Having something to hide doesn't make you a criminal and trying to prevent misuse of your info isn't a bad thing. Can I come and look round your bedroom whenever I feel like it or is your privacy a sign of your guilt?
As another poster here said "Who's to say that the human who has access to all these files doesn't become corrupt and starts selling them to crims like shop assistants have in the past with your credit card receipts?": Humans can't be trusted AND COMPUTERS ARE EASY TO CRACK!!!
"The knee-jerk reaction against them seems to me a yoof teenage-scribbler thing.": Hardly, and quite patronising may I add. I'm 28 an a reasonably sensible bloke. I can see the good this could do and part of me even agrees with the idea but the warning lights flash because it is by no means infallable. The machines can be fooled and the information misused. That isn't a knee-jerk reaction, I've been thinking (in a mature adult way) about this subject since it was first announced months ago.
"...there's no way I'm letting someone shine a laser into my eyes without a 100% guarantee of safety..." precisely, not that I think that chimps and beagles should get identity cards first but I'd want some guarentee.
"...why not develop systems that can read biometrics rather than charging us for a card to translate from biometric to numeric.": still doesn't solve the chopping and gouging problem that thieves would then pose but a better idea than a card. Already in places such as Malaysia people will cut your hand off for your wedding ring (not a racial slur by the way, a Malaysian friend told me this happens over there).
I'd also like to know what would happen in the admittedly rare case of a transplant? Would the recipient get to access the deceased's file/account.
"...but as a Christian, the book of Revelation says that in the end times no-one will be able to buy or sell without the mark of the beast.": scary! even if this isn't the mark of the beast it would set a precedent for when the real one turns up and make it easier to enforce.
It all boils down to trust and safety. I don't trust the government or the public to the degree needed to have faith in this. Why? not because I'm a wacko conspiracy theorist but because all I need to do is pick up a newspaper, switch on the telly, or if I'm brave enough go for a stroll at night and you'll see dishonest people have been at work again.
21. anonymous
Regarding the privacy issue, the fingerprint templates need NOT be kept in a database. If you contact the UK company Banque Technology Systems International, they hold the fingerprint on the smartcard and encode it in such a way that it never enters a computer system.
22. Dave Howe
Its yet another Blunkett/Tony "we know best, never mind the public" stupid idea.
Police know the card will be useless to them unless they can demand it on the spot (compulsory carry) - which happened to be the abuse of the wartime ID cards that had them withdrawn in the first place
IT and Cryptographic experts believe the scheme, even if possible, will be prohibitively expensive
And the majority of the public don't actually care either way - but will not be so complacent when they find their driving licences become 100ukp more expensive *and* have to be rebought every ten years (plus passports being five-years max and again, 100ukp more expensive) simply to force everyone in the uk to either have the cards by the "back door" or not be able to drive or travel abroad.
perhaps we can have Blunkett's son explain things to him again in terms a minister can understand?
23. Arthur Riding
Without any question whatsoever this must be the right way forward, although there needs to be informed in depth discussion on the best way to implemnt the proposals. What we don't need is the wild emotional nonsense and lies we tend to get so often these days in the media and from some individuals. Identity theft and misrepresentation is too serious an issue to be allowed to be hijacked by individuals or groups who have not bothered to think through the issues or have suspect ulterior motives in opposing ID cards.
24. Naim M Hyder
This seems to be the beginning of the plans of implementing a Police State, where we will lose our privacy and anonimity - eventually we will be electronically tagged as the chips are capable of performing that task even discreetly at first.
Children need tags more than adults as they are the ones that need to be tagged and tracked down as well as requiring protection from Paedophiles and sickos
25. Bob Robinson
Negatives, of course, but think of the benefits.
Most european countries have used ID cards for years. Their citizens do not seem to have a problem with them.
The French all carry cards with their medical records as well, this means that any doctor can treat them without fear or delay of making some disasterous mistake like giving something the patient is allergic to. All these benefits could be rolled into one card eventially. I think it is like having chips on credit cards we are the last in europe to benefit from reduced crime as a result of using the technology.
I did like the idea of dispensing with the cards alltogether and directly reading my DNA and using that to lookup the database.
26. Graham Bland
What a brilliant way to waste £3bn plus I assume £35 for each adult which is nearrly another £3bn Plus the estimates for the future so we can probably double them by the time 2010 gets here. I can see no cost benefit analysis of this. Also how will it be decided who it is who is actually applying for an ID card and what will stop multiple applications, probably not a lot.
How about we just spend more money on the police/security services instead and see what results that gives.
27. anonymous
ID cards will protect the innocent and therefore the sooner the better. Having lived in Europe where ID was compulsory it worked well.
28. Joe w
wow, an admitted 'fellow traveler' aka communist says this is a great idea. :P Never would of thought...
And here, I thought fascists(guess which ones) and communists hated each other. :/
ID cards were never meant to be used by a democratic government to control it's population. I predict that if enough policies like this are enacted in the UK, there may be another world war, as this is heading towards fascism and murder/corruption.
29. Craig
Does all this depend on there being a Labour government by 2010? If so, we have nothing to worry about.
30. Peter Stearn
Dear Silicon,
The price of freedom.
Lets hope the introduction of ID cards is just another moneymaking scheme. The project will have the usual billion pound cost overruns and the beneficiaries will be the usual government cronies and IT companies. The losers, as always will be the great British public or more precisely the UK taxpayer. To make the project a success Stalinist determination and ruthlessness must prevail. So with any luck this project is similar to previous Government sponsored IT projects and fails accordingly, albeit expensively.
Another IT project which is perhaps a moneymaking scheme is the central NHS medical records system. Why is it necessary for a doctor in Glasgow to view my medical records if I’ve broken my leg in London? I would put money on it that the health service in the UK will not improve one iota as a result of what is currently the largest public sector IT project in the world. Perhaps the government could combine the ID cards database and the NHS medical records database to create a real Orwellian monster.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Stearn
31. Peter Page
The argument "Only those with something to hide..." is fine, while we have a government that respects peoples privacy. But arming the state with the weapons of oppression is dangerous, because we may not always have such a free country. We all think there should be a line, (no state monitoring of every private house for instance, even if its only the law breakers who have something to hide), the argument is where that line should be drawn. What harm can ID cards do? Well, depends on who has access to them, what info is stored, etc. But most importantly who decides what is right!
32. Horace Knight
Wonderful news, I will carry mine with pride, I still remember my WW2 ID number. It should be renewable every year and cost £100, after all, we pay more than that to tax a car.
33. Dr Ian Thomas
Even without taking civil liberties arguements into account ID cards just don't stack up.
Let’s face it; the proposed ID cards are THE most stupid idea. You only have to think of something that it’s supposed to achieve and then imagine what will happen in the real world where people don’t behave like the are supposed, to see it collapse in a useless heap. The only use such cards could possibly be put to, is to help the state to oppress innocent individuals or groups that it did not like, for one reason or another.
However, I do expect that the Government will try to follow through with this dark and idiotic idea. And, even if the Government wakes up and comes to it’s senses about this form proposed, Personal Identity and its ownership will continue to be one of the defining issues of this decade.
Each of us should own our Identity. This is implied by the notion of Identity Theft. From whom is the identity being stolen? Why you of course! But this is not made explicit, and the basis of the UK Government’s proposal is that the State owns your identity, not you.
Rather than the talking about what rights the State may be granted by Parliament to gain access to OUR information, the discussion has, so far, been in terms of what minimal protection we may have to limit the unfettered use and possible misuse of our information by the State.
ID cards themselves are almost a technological irrelevance, since we are our own walking biometric ID cards. It is the back-end database and its connectivity to and accessibility by other databases, agencies and commercial companies that is at the heart of the real debate. The obsession with a physical card only muddies the waters.
34. David Ellams
David Blunkett is the most authoritarian Home Secretary since Charles I lost his head in 1649 for similarly interfering with the liberty and rights of the individual.
If he wants to stop terrorism, then he should get his government to stop invading foreign countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq.
Mr Blunkett's policy is a gross violation of Magna Carta. Any attempt to overturn the rights of the individual is treason. He and the rest of the cabinet that voted for his identity card scheme should be tried for treason.
35. anonymous
First the Brits were disarmed; now they'll be dehumanized, quantified, and fully regulated. But they've put up with acting like sheep for so long now, even when one of them tries to disagree with some new oppression and voice a "Bah!"-- it comes out, "Baaaaaaaaaaa."
When, if ever, are they going to rear up on their hind legs and take back their country?
36. Libertarian
To Dick Vinegar - I am certainly no "yoof scribbler" and I am strongly against ID cards. The situations he cites pre-dates the types of things that technology can achieve today and thus the potential for abuse by all manner of people from petty bureaucrats to a malign government.
A liberal democracy, is, in large part, about the citizens' right to privacy and freedom of action, without being observed, monitored and categorised.
In the past these have been (somewhat) assured by the sheer difficulty of governments infringing them (although there are plenty of examples of them trying and succeeding quite well!)
Those of us who are objecting to ID cards and similar schemes are thinking ahead a little to prevent undesirable things in YOUR future as well as ours.
"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." Benjamin Franklin. The offer of "security" through ID cards is largely illusory, just as the offer of "reduced gun crime" through banning hand guns has proved to be.
37. Pat Crawford
Is anyone worried about the possible health risks of biometrics? We know nothing about iris scanning in long term use. The health services used to take loads of x-rays and it was a long time before the health risks implicit in this were discovered.
I forsee class actions against future governments if this is made compulsory. I, for one, will resist iris scans with some vigour.
38. David Robertson
Do you really want Banks and Insurance Companies to have access to personal and eventually genetic information? People need to wake up and realise what this really means. Its not about Terrorism or Crime its about big business. Name one terrorist where an identity card would have stopped the act?
39. Richard Kellaway
Those that refuse to carry or own an ID Card can always be chipped like the dog. At least you will not lose it. We should have had cards years ago. No honest people are afraid of them.
40. Karl Buckland
Richard Kellaway
"No honest people are afraid of them."
This is nonsense. You can't sweep aside the real risk of misuse of information and the pointless cost that this scheme will require of the British public simply with an ill supported phrase designed to shame people into agreeing with you.
Hopefully people aren't going to see your remark and think "people will think I'm dishonest unless I tow the line" because that is the sort of logic best confined to the playground. Not every argument is binary.
Here in the adult world where people have access to history books that have more text than pictures, newspapers with news in not just scantily clad pop stars, and where technology is used and understood it is quite obvious that this scheme will not achieve the goals it claims it will.
The idea is not new, it has been tried before and failed to curb terrorism and failed to curb illegal immigrancy.
All people in Britian, honest and dishonest alike, will be asked to fork out larger sums of cash than before for driving licenses and passports and fork out cash for an ID card.
You may be well off enough to afford these expenses but I and many others can't afford it or frankly don't want to spend unecessary amounts of cash on a red herring.
If the state was honest and the police were infallable then there would be less of a problem but they are not so on matter how honest I am or others may be the ID card can still negatively impact our lives.
41. anonymous
When Gordon Brown takes over he will no doubt axe ID cards. It is known he is opposed and what better way to put one over bliar, blunket and co.
42. Ruprecht
Anon from Coventry...do you know something we don't?????
;o)
R
43. anonymous
Just trying to bring reality to thid debate. Anyone who's crying out to have their eyes scanned, fingers studied with a laser or microchipped so that old Bat ears Clarkey can keep watch needs an appointment with their GP.
Maybe we should all have the back of our necks barcoded like Becks???
Mind you if this cards thing does go through you will need the card on you to see your GP - according to old Clarkey. Talking of which...what if someone seriously ill - maybe old and confused needs to see their GP - and they have left the card at home. Whats the GP supposed to do ? refuse to see them and send them away ? This card scheme is flawed from start to finish.
44. anonymous
Biometric ID cards have been used in Malaysia as far back as I can remember. It was initially introduced to weed out communists way back in the late 1950s. The idea behind it being the National Registry would already have records of birth, deaths, and marriages, with respective certificates issued to the individuals - and communists who infiltrated into Malaysian society lacked the means to obtain a national ID card as application for one requires producing a birth certificate issued by the National Registry as well as other supporting documents.
Carrying a compulsory biometric national ID card is a way of life for all Malaysians - it is mandatory for a Malaysian citizen to apply for one when he/she reaches the age of 12, and renewed at the age of 18. Records that appear on the ICs are the IC Number, photo, name, address, and date of birth. The biometric elements are the left and right thumbprints which appears at the back of the card. The same kind of information that appears in your passports and driving licenses (with the exception of the thumbprints).
ICs (idendity cards) are used as a proof of identification in all aspects of government and private transactions requiring proof of identification - application for anything from utilities to bank accounts, driving licenses, employment, income tax, the list goes on.
45. anonymous
personally i think is too much of a risk to introduce the ID cards with crucially revealing information like your fingerprints and iris scanning. the information as well as being sensitive to disclose to the governement bodies, we are not even sure if is the government who is behind this. what's more, the government is not of that technical aptitude as to support a database full of millions of people's data on it. it can be extremely dangerous if the data like your finger prints gets mistaken with someone else's, it can result in people being detained and unnecessarily further checked.