By Andy McCue, 28 October 2005 16:35
NEWS
The UK's data protection watchdog has slammed the government's ID card plans saying there is no justification for storing so much personal and biometric information in a central national identity register (NIR).
Information commissioner Richard Thomas warns that the extensive personal information to be retained on the NIR and the requirement for individuals to keep notifying changes in circumstances is "excessive and disproportionate".
The government's Identity Cards Bill, which was given the green light by a majority of MPs earlier this month, will force individuals to disclose all the addresses they have previously lived at and any future change in address.
In a paper outlining his concerns, Thomas says it is difficult to see the relevance of such details once a person's identity has been established by recording their biometric details and issuing the ID card.
He said: "The extent of the information retained as a core part of the NIR is unwarranted and intrusive. The measures in the bill go well beyond establishing a secure, reliable and trustworthy ID card."
Thomas also has concerns about the data trail that will be generated. Details of each ID card will be recorded when it is checked against the NIR and, says Thomas, this will create a snapshot of individuals' card use. From this, a detailed picture of how card holders live their lives could be built up.
He also warns that the ID card data trail could easily be linked with other initiatives such as CCTV surveillance using automatic facial recognition, the use of automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) recording vehicle movements for law enforcement and congestion charging, and proposals to introduce satellite tracking of vehicles for road use charging purposes.
He added: "Each development puts in place another component in the infrastructure of a 'surveillance society'. To avoid this it is important that each component limits to the minimum the recording of information about individuals, otherwise we risk unleashing unwarranted intrusion into individuals' lives by government and other public bodies."
Other ID card concerns outlined by the Information Commissioner include the technical and administrative arrangements for the scheme, the breadth of organisations with access to the NIR and the lack of power for checks on data protection compliance and the investigation of problems experienced by individuals.
The ID cards bill is due to begin its passage through the House of Lords next week where it is expected to get a tougher reception than it did from MPs. Just this week two separate reports by House of Lords committees slammed the bill over the lack of safeguards for privacy, security and human rights.
Comments
There are 4 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
Speed Cameras? ANPR? Loyalty Cards? Credit Cards? Biometric Tracking??
I was under the impression that Great Britain stood for similar goals as the rest of the west…. ‘Freedom’? It appears that a surveillance focused society is already amongst us, the veil of ‘convenience’, ‘safety’ and ‘security’ is quickly manifesting itself for what it really is… SURVEILLANCE.
It’s funny how our American cousins overseas do not stand for this sort of rubbish. We English need to stand up for ourselves and remember that we reside within a DEMOCRACY. If we do not wish to have our cars tracked, our shopping tracked, our internet tracked, our whereabouts ON FOOT tracked then we must stand up to this current communistic government. If we need to seek shelter under European law then so be it but we must not be abused in such an undemocratic way.
Next time the election comes around just remember that it is the LABOUR Government that is slowly killing the freedom of this country and all it stands for.
2. Martin Anderson
My biggest issue with this bill is that it puts power in the hands of an unelected grey bureaurocracy. Once the results are in place we will have all the levers for an incredibly powerful police state, and it won't take much for that to happen - then so much for freedom.
The only way I can see to prevent this is to make the information collected freely available to all. It sounds radical, but information is power only if a small group have exclusive access to it. Making all the information about everyone including the prime minister and the queen freely available will restore strength to our democracy. We may not like the idea of our neighbours being able to snoop, but it's better than unknown people having unknown powers to snoop.
3. Richard
Why does no-one care?
I'm astonished by the lack of public concern about these ever more dangerous and repressive government projects.
Despite all the known problems and dangers, the tabloid media and most politicians seem automatically to support the government: Public opinion seems simply to follow this lead.
Are most people too busy or cowed to care; or do people just assume that they and their families will never fall foul of these measures?
We are told that many in 1930's Germany initially felt the same.
4. Karen Challinor
And while I'm on the subject of guilt and innocence, does anyone else find it highly suspicions that the man who was then home secretary, who was one of the people responsible for pushing this bill through so forcefully, just happens to be able to walk into a directorship in a company involved in producing key technology in a field that will be required should the bill become law, a field for which he has no previous experience ?
I wonder if there are other fingers in pies that are set to become extremely lucrative should this bill become law ?