By Martin Brampton, 19 October 2004 09:20
COMMENT Whether or not you believe in the benefits of ID cards, the campaign for them in the UK may well be a cover-up for deeper seated agendas such as a national database - and a redefinition of all public sector services, says Martin Brampton.
UK Home Secretary David Blunkett figures in this year's silicon.com Agenda Setters poll because of his advocacy for schemes such as ID cards for all. A question worth asking is whether the ID card is driving the need for a database of all citizens, or vice versa.
Usually, the assumption is that ID cards are justified and that to make them practical, a huge database has to be built. IT people then run around thinking about the practical issues. Ian Watmore, recently appointed head of the new e-government unit, thinks there should be an end to information silo culture in government.
Is the ID card justified? If the construction of a huge national database is required solely to support ID cards, then there is certainly a very large cost at stake. There are also considerable concerns about personal privacy and community relations.
The cited benefits are tenuous. The favourite justification for almost any government scheme nowadays is that it combats terrorism. Yet the recent bombing in Madrid that caused serious loss of life was actually carried out by Spanish citizens, who had perfectly genuine Spanish ID cards.
Other justifications include cutting fraud and crime. What is ignored is that ID cards create a whole new business for organised crime through the sale of forged cards. In countries where cards are in use, this has happened, sometimes on a massive scale. Only the most sophisticated, and therefore costly, cards would be proof against forgery.
Indeed in countries that have ID cards, nobody has ever offered proof that the cited benefits can be realised. And there are proven drawbacks, with minority ethnic groups being required to produce ID card disproportionately often. Without proven benefits, what can be the justification for the cards?
Now suppose the real goal is the database and the ID cards merely a political ploy to justify the cost of a huge IT project that would never be accepted on its own merits. Then we would need to ask about the real reasons for building an all-embracing database of personal information. Is a desire to eliminate a silo culture an end in itself or is there another political goal behind the enthusiasm?
For comparison, we can look at the rules as they are applied to commercial businesses by the information commissioner, who has been severely critical of government plans. To some degree the individual is protected by the fragmented nature of the business sector. The data protection rules then restrict each business, requiring it to gather only information that is needed for its immediate business and demanding that it ask permission.
In the past, government has been somewhat similar, in that each part of government has kept its own records and the records have related only to the relevant aspect of the individual's life. So the NHS has records on just about everybody but the information has been confined to strictly health-related matters and has mostly been kept confidential. Achieving this has led to considerable complexities as the NHS attempts to share data with outside organisations that have a legitimate interest in health matters.
But if government policy is reflected by Watmore's statements, it seems a new view is prevalent. No longer is the public sector to be seen as a bundle of services and enterprises, each of which exists to provide some public good. Instead, the public sector is to be seen on the model of a conglomerate, with Watmore as group CIO.
The consequences of such a view have implications far beyond the confines of mere IT efficiency. It is one thing to suggest that different arms of government should avoid inconsistency and undue overlap. It is quite another to see the public sector as a monolith. Without far more genuine public accountability than is presently available, it risks creating a system where huge power is concentrated in the hands of an unresponsive executive.
Does government need to have extensive information on every individual? Or is the citizen entitled to live independently of government, revealing only what information is needed in particular circumstances? That is the real question, even if government is reluctant to ask it.
Comments
There are 32 comments. Join the discussion
1. Karen Meidl
Given:
1. the total indifference of politicians nowadays to the opinions/views of the public that elects them;
2. the belief of government that the only way to get the public to go along with ANY of their plans, especially where there are ulterior motives, is to lie to the public or simply ignore the majority;
3. the inherent inefficiency in governmental bureaucratic processes;
implementing a scheme like an ID card would be foolish. It would only serve to make us even more suspicious of a government we already don't trust. Whilst this might not be saying much in terms of the inaction on the part of the British public, it would leave implementation of the scheme open to all sorts of abuse especially if it is not supported by the very people who it is targeting.
2. Richard
I would have thought the Home Office would have a giant database already for when it hands out passports as they require lot of personal info and each have an ID number... wouldn't an ID card become a pocket-sized passport?
How many of us carry around our passports with us when we go abroad? I know I do when I use travellers cheques.
3. Paul Smith
I value the freedom in the UK of not having to prove your identity and not having to carry proof of identity around. It is a real sign of our liberal society.
I agree that in countries that do have ID cards there is a general view that the UK is a safer place. So we don't need them.
I am more afraid of an all powerful government than a few (and yes it is a few) fanatics that are trying to change our lifestyle. We can beat them without a draconian state apparatus.
4. anonymous
This is abolutely spot on. The benefits of ID cards are dubious in the least and I believe the real goal is the database.
Do we really want the Inland Revenue to be able to see when we last saw a doctor or Customs and excise to check how many time we been in and out of the country in the last year? The temptation to share personal information between government agencies would be huge and is probably the main goal.
We've already had a glimpse of what may happen with the DVLA and the TV licencing authority. Both these agencies now use technology to prosecute people by default for offences that they used to have to have physical evidence. In the case of road tax evasion and TV licence evasion you used to have to be physically caught i.e. driving the car, or watching a TV with out the relevant documentation. Now they can investigate you by default from database records, the actual paper is practically irrelevant. Moreover this usually only penalises the more law abiding citizen who actually registers his car in his own name. Determined criminals bypass the system all together. So we have in effect a tax on the forgetful rather than tool against the determined criminal. How much farther will this sort of thing go when all departmental database are linked or merged into one?
5. Paul Wilson
ID Cards for everyone??? Does this mean that from day 1 (or from when a child is registered (birth) or when a person reaches a certain age?? Does the government think that they will be able to spot a terrorist form an ID card. People develop different ideals at different ages, and unlike some films, we do not all think alike (thankfully). ID cards can be classed as an infringment on privacy, especially if they are used to track movemnents, or for example trends. What is the idea of ID cards, to be shown when you travel? would you be required to show your ID as you would if you were to get on a train, bus?? What DATA will be kept on an ID card, Name, Address, Birthdate, Marital status, Blood Group, National Insurance no. Healthcare no. ?? these are the things that are being bandied about, but this information, on one card!!! That will allow for Identity theft on a large scale. Codes can be broken, encryption can be stolen. There has been attempts to share data within the NHS for over 20 years now, and everything is still disjointed, to bring all this together, as the gevernment are trying to sell this, would be at least (at the current state of affairs and procedings) 40 years away, if they could agree on a platform in which to start from. Not only would the government have to agree on a set standard for this country, but they would have to adopt a standard that would be european wide, as they will have to conform to EU standards on private data transfer. Just think how much junk mail and email you get from filling in a form on an Internet site, or mail order form, or even buying something in a shop. Now times by millions, as you can be assured, that someone will sell your info to a company, who in turn will sell it to another company, who in turn will sell it to another etc etc etc. ID CARDS - NO - if it ever gets off the ground, beware, or tell a few porkies here and there.
6. James Button
ID's - NHS number and passport or EU id card already exist
So obviously what the government want is a database of personal details such as DNA - if you are arrested for anything your DNA will be taken - and they want to be able to check it against all your movements and activities.
Until they manage to get, and keep the current records correct, there is NO WAY that they should be allowed to add more confusion to the systems and data they are not managing properly
7. Richard Sarson
No, the real question is:
Is it more convenient for the citizen to show a generally recognised ID card, or to frig about with lots of itsy-bitsy ID bits of paper?
The recent silicon.com referendum showed that most people want a card. So why doesn't Martin Brampton lie back and accept the people's will, and concentrate on solving the problems, not just knocking the whole shebang?
8. Ken Hall
So most people want a card eh? Maybe so, most people want a voluntary, free, nationally recogniseable card.
However, a simple nationally recognised card is not being proposed. What is being proposed is a compulsary biometric ID card, that will store information that the holder will not have direct access to, that will cost the holder upwards of £40.00. What is troubling is that we do not know what else the card may be used for.
Will the national database hold all your transactions, known contacts and other personal, behavioural information so that a risk profile can be developed? What would define that risk? political affiliations? purchases? religious beliefs? known contacts? specific behaviour patterns? travel destinations?
I know I'm out on a limb, but can anyone prove me wrong? can you prove that this is not what the outcome will be? and if so, is it worth the risk?
1930's Germany sleep walked into an evil dictatorship. The same could happen here.
"You requested the wrong book, that's seditious reading citizen, your risk rating went up. come with me."
Most people, when told of this real potential option, do not want an ID card.
Prove me wrong. Please.
9. Ken Hall
So most people want a card eh? maybe so, most people want a voluntary, free, nationally recogniseable card.
However, a simple nationally recognised card is not being proposed. What is being proposed is a compulsary biometric ID card, that will store information that the holder will not have direct access to, that will cost the holder upwards of £40.00. What is troubling is that we do not know what else the card may be used for.
Will the national database hold all your transactions, known contacts and other personal, behavioural information so that a risk profile can be developed? What would define that risk? political affiliations? purchases? religious beliefs? known contacts? specific behaviour patterns? travel destinations?
I know I'm out on a limb, but can anyone prove me wrong? can you prove that this is not what the outcome will be? and if so, is it worth the risk?
1930's Germany sleep walked into an evil dictatorship. The same could happen here.
"You requested the wrong book, that's seditious reading citizen, your risk rating went up. come with me."
Most people, when told of this real potential option, do not want an ID card.
Prove me wrong. Please.
10. Fred Perkins
This is one of these debates where the doomsayers have endless patience in banging away until "ordinary people", for whom it isn't really a big deal, just give up. Too often in this country, significant advances don't happen because it's easier to do nothing and suffer the current (old) position, complete with all its problems.
For various reasons, we need proper identification. Not just government, but retailers, examining bodies, airlines, banks, hospitals and everyone else, all, for various perfectly valid reasons, need to be reasonably sure they know who we are dealing with.
But meantime, we all carry around things which (only) half do the job. None of the current id-oriented devices (including passports) is really good enough. So there's no consistency in what is asked for, nor in the efficiency of id checking. A single ID card, as secure as it can be, has to be a positive step forward.
Of course it'll be open to criminal elements to target and exploit, and bureaucratic inefficiencies and incompetence...but at least there will be one single device which the various authorities can use their best efforts to get right and protect, rather than try stay on top of the myriad of ways in which identity fraud can occur.
In today's society, we all need as good a means as possible of ensuring we (and everyone else) can establish their true identity. Let's not hang on to old cliches about human rights exploitation or abuse of power.
11. Ian Savell
I agree that the real issue is the database, and the problem is data quality. As has been said, countries with mandatory ID cards are among the most dangerous and lawless in the world. Given that most people are honest and only a few are seriously criminal, and the seriously criminal also have access to the best forging and hacking technology, you can bet that either there will be massive inconvenience for honest people or criminals will be able to get away with anything.
The issue is not civil liberties (but that is important) but civil inconvenience - not being able to tax your car because someone entered a digit wrong in your postcode, or being jailed for fraud because "no-one else could have made that £25,000 withdrawal"
12. anonymous
Disproving the threats...
Of course nobody can disprove what MIGHT happen...any more than you can disprove that the person sitting next to you at the moment might murder you in the next 24 hours... or that Microsoft isn't already amassing more information than a government in its wildest dreams could envisage, with Bill Gates thinking about enslaving the world.
"Most people", if they really understood all the worrying possibilities of just about everything around them - would, by extrapolation, withdraw from society totally.
But that isn't really a viable option, is it??
13. Richard2
High Cost, Low Benefit of Government Regulations:
ID cards like so many recent government regulations will come at a very high cost but produce very few benefits.
The law-abiding majority will be faced with the costs, inconveniences and penalties whereas criminals and terrorists will quickly find alternatives. The increasingly intrusive government (and/or its PFI partners) will gain a huge database whose many data errors will cause us further problems.
By comparison, consider the Financial Services Agency and "Anti Money Laundering" regulations:
Opening a new bank account used to be simple. Now we have to produce numerous items to "prove" who we are. Criminals just bypass these checks.
Results:
1. Our old utility bills, old letters and old bank statements now have a value to criminals.
2. Banks incur huge fines just for failures to follow the correct processes, even when no crime or damage has occurred.
3. Financial advisors have raised their charges just to cover the compliance costs.
4. But. Has criminality been reduced?
How would an ID card project be different, even IF the technology is faultless?
14. anonymous
Where is the respect for democracy, human rights or choice? We'd have been sold ID cards via good service - to save filling forms on a basis of choice. Compulsion is the issue who wants to be monitored and controlled by this lot - what do they think we might get up to in 45 mins? Are they trustworthy? My ID and activity is not government business unless I am a crime suspect and until they will accept they need to be accountable first.
15. Carl Young
They're coming at some point. Let's hope that they could be made more useful - the goverment could become a certificate issuing authority and allow us to store certificates on our smart ID cards. Very useful!
16. Neil Barrett
'Only the most sophisticated, and therefore costly, cards would be proof against forgery.'
Yeah, right....
17. jonathan
I have my suspicions that we dont really live in a democracy at all....well maybe just for one day every four years. So the politicians can say....well!! you voted for us!!
Maybe I am becoming cynical or maybe I am not far from the truth.
Lets face it, we pay people that we on occasion despise....to tell us what we should and shouldnt accept in our society....you may smile...but its true.
jonathan
18. Mikal Dunne
Think of the cost. BAse it on how much the NHS fiasco has cost so far, so say £100 billion to implement. Do the normal IT cost double factor so it's now £200 billion and and 50% for good measure = £300 billion. Over the top? Maybe but the cost alone will hurt everyone and the idea this thing will not be abused... please the laughing hurts too much.
19. anonymous
As a Christian and ethnic miniority person, I have always had grave misgivings about what amounts to Gestapo interference into one's privacy.
I don't want to play the 666 card again. However recent high level pronouncements against Christianity give me ominous signs.
20. Lee Wardle
Some brilliant comments here, especially by Ken Hall whom I am in full agreement with.
Lee Wardle
21. anonymous
How about an alternative model to all these databases of inconsistent information and where the authority to access the data is unclear
Since it is all MY data then why don't I own, maintain and control it. When someone, anyone, Government, Commercial whatever wants some information from me then they specifically identify themselves and request it - electronically of course
Some people I would trust and give access to some of my information - and that might NOT include "Government" and would certainly not include Microsoft. Others I would give limited access to
There could be other benefits: if all my NHS records were my responsibility then I could no longer blame the system if they were not available when I visited a consultant
There would be a market for companies to host and manage access to the individual data based on a reputation of trust, so it specifically does not have to be a PC-based system
22. anonymous
How about an alternative model to all these databases of inconsistent information and where the authority to access the data is unclear
Since it is all MY data then why don't I own, maintain and control it. When someone, anyone, Government, Commercial whatever wants some information from me then they specifically identify themselves and request it - electronically of course
Some people I would trust and give access to some of my information - and that might NOT include "Government" and would certainly not include Microsoft. Others I would give limited access to
There could be other benefits: if all my NHS records were my responsibility then I could no longer blame the system if they were not available when I visited a consultant
There would be a market for companies to host and manage access to the individual data based on a reputation of trust, so it specifically does not have to be a PC-based system
23. Luke
The ID card scheme is the next phase in a much larger plan. it has been on the adgenda since the start and will happen as planned. We can say no, we can stand against this absolute violation of freedom. It is a scare tactic which everyone who is for it is falling for. sacrificing freedom for security is no gain, we lose everything. They say it is for security, it is not, it is, as described in this article as a way of databasing all citizens. I will never accept this as an option. for all who agree, go and research this greater plan. here are some leads for you. www.infowars.com, david icke, alex jones, prison,
The people behind all of this are
THE_NEW_WORLD_ORDER
24. Richard
Although I am not as perturbed by the intro of ID cards as some others here, I am remaining open minded to see what their final purpose will be, e.g. we ditch our passport and NI card for this one card which I would be in favour of!
I can understand people who want to keep their privacy and not have the Government storing records of when the card has been accessed and where, BUT.....
This is where you have to look open-minded....
Take the ever impressive nectar card --> used for shopping (sainsburys, threshers) petrol (BP), holidays (Thomas Cook), mobile phones (Vodafone)...
Now all those companies listed are just a few where you can use your nectar card, but they are also some of the biggest companies in the UK/World. Everytime you use your card, these companies will have real time access of your shopping habits, where you shop and what you buy and how often; how you use your phone and who you call and when you call....
Is that not just as worse as your ID card, yet so many of us will carry a nectar card in our wallets without even stopping to think that we are inadvertly being spied on.
Besides that, what makes you think there already isnt a database of our details and DNA? What happens to your blood when you have a blood test at a Government run hospital? Our photos and vital details are already given for passports so what more do they need that a blood test and a nectar doesnt alreay provide??
25. Adair
It's not the card it's the datatbase and who'll be running it, plus the principle. It's the Govt's. job to serve the people, not the other way round. What Blunkett is proposing tips the balance firmly in the direction of us being servants of the Govt. They will have easily within their reach a power to monitor and control individual lives in a way that tyrannies anywhere dream of. On the other hand we can uphold the cockup theory of Govt. and imagine the kind of almighty cock-ups this vicious white elephant could impose on individual lives.
No thanks, I'm a human being not an object, and there comes a point when I prefer o take my chances in the big wide world withoout having someone else imposing thier ideas of how safe I should be and whether or not I am a valid person.
26. Adair
It's not the card it's the datatbase and who'll be running it, plus the principle. It's the Govt's. job to serve the people, not the other way round. What Blunkett is proposing tips the balance firmly in the direction of us being servants of the Govt. They will have easily within their reach a power to monitor and control individual lives in a way that tyrannies anywhere dream of. On the other hand we can uphold the cockup theory of Govt. and imagine the kind of almighty cock-ups this vicious white elephant could impose on individual lives.
No thanks, I'm a human being not an object, and there comes a point when I prefer o take my chances in the big wide world withoout having someone else imposing thier ideas of how safe I should be and whether or not I am a valid person.
27. Chris Allonby
Nectar cards are voluntary. Like the majority of UK residents I don't have one. The ID card, if it ever happens, will be compulsory.
I am 100% confident that when you donate blood your DNA profile is not being secretly recorded and added to a crime database. Many in government would dearly like to do so, but at the moment it doesn't happen, and hopefully never will.
28. anonymous
Whatever happened to "terrorists must never dictate government policy" - that's exactly what's happening.
The best way to deal with them is, as with the attention-seeking child, ignore their bad behaviour and encourage their good.
29. Richard
I know that nectar cards are voluntarily, but my point was just to show how many of us sign up for them - giving away our details willingly with companies having details to all our habits.
But as soon as the word compulsory pops up, it seems to scare people.
Do you think people would have reacted differently if they said the ID cards would not be compulsory? And how many would sign up, and sign up later if it proved a success?
The blood thing was just a hyperthetical situation just put in to say how easy it could be for the Govt to get hold of your DNA, as blood tests are voluntarily done and they are done in Govt hospitals....just conspiracy hocus pocus!
I dont mean to be thick, but when people say they dont trust the Govt with their details, what do people mean? Because the Govt already know who i am, my age, next of kin, nationality and what i look like through my passport application....what else do they need to know?
30. Tanya Gibbs
Everything the govt currently holds, and everything Nectar currently holds, is subject to the Data Protection Act. I get a say in exactly how my information is used and who can else can look at it.
The ID Cards Bill circumvents this wonderful piece of legislation by effectively allowing anyone the Home Sec nominates to have access to your data. You don't get a say, you may not even know it's happened and there are no controls within the Draft Bill.
I am happy for a supermarket to know my favourite brand of toothpaste; I'm not happy for my bank to see my medical records.
31. Drew Edgar
COST EFFECTIVENESS
Sure let's have biometric ID cards if we can ensure that there is an immediate as well as long term benefit.
To achieve this, immigration procedures should be beefed up & the ID card implementation used to immediately expel any & everyone (& their family members) who entered England, Scotland, Wales or Ulster illegally or who had broken our laws whilst here.
This would make the implementation costs acceptable. Otherwise the scheme will be seen a merely another money wasting idea employing in many cases, the "favoured" & the unemployable, achieving precisely nothing. As with so many of this government's nanny quangos.
32. anonymous
ID cards will inevitably change the relationship between the State and the individual. Rather than the State being answerable to you, it is you who will be answerable to the State. No other common law country has ID cards. And most ID card schemes on the continent are entirely voluntary.
But the even greater menace is the Big Brother database. Here, for once, this government has shown some uncharacteristic joined up thinking in its quest to create a Police State. Other bills to be introduced include one that will compulsarily register in the database every child in the country. In addition, anyone arrested will now have their DNA and fingerprints automatically taken and stored regardless of whether they are convicted are even charged with anything. Notice also how Blunkett now wants EVERY offence to be an arrestable offence - again a situation that exists in no other common law or in most European countries. The police will now be able to take and store your DNA and fingerprints pretty much for any reason. For this they will also no longer even have to take you to a police station.