By silicon.com, 27 October 2004 17:25
The consultation and political posturing is now officially over. Home Secretary David Blunkett has made some final changes to his ID card proposals that could now see the bill make its way through Parliament starting with its inclusion in the Queen's speech next month.
The consultation summary and response to MPs' criticisms published by the Home Office today are aimed at reassuring Parliament and the public that the concerns have been addressed and changes made.
Indeed, some have - the ID card will now be a standalone compulsory biometric ID card rather than being included on the passport or driving licence, a new executive agency will manage the scheme and an independent watchdog will scrutinise it all.
But the devil is in the detail - or lack thereof. Blunkett's statement that he will now "bring forward legislation to bring in a compulsory, national ID card scheme" neatly sweeps under the carpet the masses of testimony included in the consultation expressing concern about all aspects of the ID card plan including its scope, cost, security and privacy.
And these concerns aren't raised only by the 'usual suspects' such as privacy groups but also by law bodies, the Confederation of British Industry and even the general public. What's more, new Home Office figures in the report showing the previously quoted 79 per cent figure of those in favour of ID cards has now shrunk to just 31 per cent - with 48 per cent against.
A common criticism running through the reports is a lack of detail about how exactly the ID card scheme will be set up and run. This is particularly worrying when the bill is just weeks away from starting its journey through Parliament on the way to becoming law.
The government claims it will take incremental steps to ensure such a large-scale IT project doesn't go the way of other government failures. The problem is the cause of failure identified in those projects was often a poorly defined business case and scope creep. Anyone spot a trend here?
This isn't about whether ID cards are right or wrong - that's a whole separate debate based on your own political beliefs. Whether we like it or not ID cards will be introduced in the UK but we should be seriously concerned about the way it is being done. The government argues it can't properly define the technical scope until it begins the procurement process - which it can't begin until the ID card bill has been passed into law.
But some of the questions the government still hasn't addressed are quite serious, including who will have access to the data held in the National Identity Register underpinning ID cards (Blunkett says this isn't an issue as the data isn't really 'sensitive' anyway) and whether biometrics are robust enough to be rolled out on this scale (the government says yes but when asked about the proposed 10-year validity of each card says it isn't sure whether biometric chips will need replacing half-way through).
Whatever the merits and cons of a national ID card scheme for the UK, taxpayers and businesses ought to be concerned about this railroading through Parliament of such a complex scheme - which suggests it's more about politically-driven election year timing than anything else.
Comments
There are 4 comments. Join the discussion
1. Alan Tench
I am quietly confident that this whole project will be an unmitigated disaster. The technology is just not there to provide the system that Big Blunkett yearns for, and the logistics of it all will be a total nightmare. Unfortunately it won't be this government that's brought down by it, but perhaps the next one. £3.2 Billion eh! For that read £30 billion!
2. Mark SPLINTER
Whether we like it or not? Is that the state of our democracy? We are the people, they are just the government. They really cannot force this on the country, unless they create some kind of Demolition Man style two-tier society. They just don't know yet what a big fuss this will cause, and if they did, they would concentrate on education and poverty instead of IT.
The ultimate question for anyone signing up to this ID card is: Do you trust your government? Now if Tony and David want a referendum on how trustworthy they are, this is perfect.
3. anonymous
ID cards are a stupid idea, proposed by morons. How will we prove who we are in order to get the thing in the first place? In order to make the scheme econmically viable, the technology will have to be so basic that any fool with enough time on their hands will be able reproduce the cards.
Biometric tests are fundamentally flawed. Iris scans don't work for the blind or otherwise handicapped and fingerprints are impossible for those without hands. This is discrimination. There is only one test that works for everyone. DNA fingerprinting, and the government will only get mine from my cold dead hands.
4. Anne O'nimous
911, Madrid, Paris Metro to name but three events where loss of life was caused and in countries or in situations where ID had to be verified.
Basically the premise for compulsory ID is false, USA has higher crime rates than UK and has compulsory IDs.
If this is about immigration control then the costs of the control need to be weighed up against spending the money properly to deal with the issue here and now.
An ID card never stopped a suicide bomber.