By Andy McCue, 4 August 2006 16:05
NEWS
The ID cards scheme has come under fire again after a report by a government committee expressed "great concern" about the lack of transparency and the cost and scope of the project.
The damning report by MPs on the government's Science and Technology Committee said the Home Office's approach to the ID cards scheme has been "inconsistent" and lacking in clarity, and warned that procurement may need to be delayed.
The committee said it is still unclear who has responsibility for the IT element of the ID cards programme, which appears to have been left to the private sector to determine.
The report said: "Such confusion has been exacerbated by the lack of transparency of the scheme. In addition, there is a lack of clarity regarding the overall scope of the scheme, the scenarios when the card might be used, the procurement process and the OGC [Office of Government Commerce] Gateway reviews."
The committee recommended the Home Office employ a systems architect and establish an ICT assurance committee to review proposed specifications, even if this means delays to the rollout of ID cards.
The report added: "We reiterate that once trials commence, if the evidence gathered indicates the need for changes in the programme, such changes should be made even if the timescale of the project is extended in consequence."
Data protection watchdog the Information Commissioner's Office has also hit out again at the secrecy surrounding the ID card scheme in upholding two Freedom of Information complaints against the OGC's refusal to publicly release the ID cards Gateway Reviews.
silicon.com Public Sector
Get the latest public sector news straight to your inbox. Sign up for the PS newsletter today!
Richard Thomas said releasing details of the reviews is in the public interest and would not prejudice the OGC's ability to carry out its functions.
The criticisms come as Prime Minister Tony Blair pledged to make ID cards a key plank of Labour's next election manifesto.
In his monthly press conference, Blair said: "Whatever adjustments are made because of technical issues to do with the technology of introducing it and so on, do not be under any doubt at all that this is a major, major issue for us and will be a major plank of the Labour Party's manifesto at the next election, and that is for a very simple reason. If people want to track illegal migration and organised crime in this country you have got to have identity cards. Any other solution simply will not work."
But Phil Booth, national co-ordinator of the No2ID campaign group, said: "For Tony Blair to start writing a manifesto for an election in which he won't even stand as an MP smacks of sheer desperation. Scrabbling for some sort of legacy, he's trying to lumber his successor with the millstone of his bankrupt and delusional ID policies."
Comments
There are 15 comments. Join the discussion
1. Dave Manford
"If people want to track illegal migration and organised crime in this country you have got to have identity cards." I thought ID cards were supposed to be all about anti-terrorism!
2. Graham Coles
When will these idiots listen to reason:
'If people want to track illegal migration and organised crime in this country you have got to have identity cards. Any other solution simply will not work'
Security experts have repeatedly stated that ID cards will not tackle crime and will not tackle illegal immigration.
Wasn't there a quotation somewhere that says a psychopath, when told that 2 + 2 = 4 will simply refuse to believe it.
I guess we now know why Blair is continuing to delude himself.
3. Ruth
What next Labour election manifesto? They can 'manifest' to their heart's delight but I don't think anyone would be stupid enought to positively vote that lot in again. However, let's all make very sure that we do go out & vote next time round so they're not elected through default (as they were this time)
4. Richard A
I really do hope ID cards are made a central plank of Labour's next election manifesto... because that will make it soooo much easier for me not to vote Labour for the first time in over 20 years.
Instead of feeling guilt for betraying my political roots by helping an even worse bunch of power-crazed lunatics into office, I will enjoy a sense of relief and civic duty at helping consign this morally bankrupt coven of war-mongering, hypocritical, control freaks to the foetid landfill of history.
"Do not be under any doubt at all that this is a major, major issue for us and will be a major plank of the Labour Party's manifesto at the next election" quoth Blair
"...Or a major, major nail in New Labour's coffin" I replied.
5. anonymous
Might I suggest that Labour 'is not fit for purpose'. They seem to constantly come up with new ideas but NEVER follow through. The ID card fiasco illustrates my point perfectly, but there are many other examples. Please remember this next time they want your vote!
6. Rob Garner
Cloaning ID cards and selling them to illegal migrants is a huge opportunity for organized crime
7. anonymous
The government plans to spend huge national resources (our money) on ID cards in order to combat fraud through impersonation and the criminal minds are working hard to overcome these obstacles to their chosen business. Society has to decide that it is not prepared to put up with this behaviour.
The problem only arises because the criminal does his (or her) risk analysis and finds it a good business proposition by weighing three factors - financial reward, chance of getting caught and length of prison sentence.
Thus, if the crime will yield £250,000 but the penalty is 12 months in prison and the chance of getting caught, say, 10%, he may feel the risk to be worth the reward.
I suggest that the basis of this analysis should be changed so that the convict cannot look forward to enjoying the benefits of crime on release.
The penalty on conviction for impersonation, theft or fraud (bank, credit card, social security etc) should be in 2 parts:
1. The convict should be held in prison until the damage is made good - the monies repaid etc.
2. Only when this is satisfied, does the punishment part of the sentence begin.
This will shift the balance of the risk analysis away from the criminal and identity cards could be simplified considerably. A penalty of, say, ten years for being wrongfully in possession of an identity card would discourage most thieves.
8. James Button
So NI numbers won't, but ID cards will protect the country from terrorists and illegal immigrants.
And - the terrorists, like the rest of the citizens will not be required to show the cards
I'm puzzled, How does that work?
Especially when NI numbers were (are?) being issued on demand, and without ID checks, and Income/Tax Credits were sent out if you just gave a tax office employees NI number and mothers maiden name together with the bank account you set-up from the bedsit rented for a month.
Bit of a bummer if you were an abandoned, or test tube baby, or taken from your parents by a family court and adopted by a pair of male Civil Partners
9. James Button
Anonymous of Sunbar, - How politically incorrect can you get
How about:
Sentences for repreat offences being 50% more than the prior punishment
Conviction for a subsequent offence automatically invoking a requirement to serve any remission allowed on the sentence associated with and earlier, and similar offence.
Multiple crimal actions being treated as multiple offences, and incurring multiple consequtive penalties, not being treated as a good go, and getting concurrent sentences.
Then again, that's getting away from the pointlessness of ID card cloning, , except for sale to the gullible if you don't need to carry them at all times, and have them verified on demand.
Oh1 and with appropriate penalties for having other peoples ID cards in your posession
10. James Bond 007
It really appears that the 'Why?' and 'What For?' factor is kicking in with the general public, well at least the general public that reads silicon.com
I have been against the introduction of I.D cards for the simple reason that the 'Simple Reasons' held for the introduction just don't seem to ring true.
I believe that our government has far more in store for us.... the general public than is being made clear..... like Elvis I may just be falling pray to the 'suspicious minds' reagrding change but my gut feeling is that we are being lied to..... erm ....in general.
11. anonymous
Somebody said if it is not a good idea ,let the oppostion sought it out at a later date and bow out gracefully.
12. anonymous
And then what happens if the opposition decide to introduce it? The same all over again.
I'm all for the benefits of an ID Card.
I have nothing to hide and nothing to worry about.
I'd rather have one document than 10. All in one, thought I'd say it would need a biomeric eye scan and fingerprint combination to actually work properly.
Say for example your in car crash and you're loosing blood fast and you're complete medical history could be downloaded off your card in an instant, along with any allergic reactions to medicines of all types.
The thing is your current ID Card does not have this ability at the moment - it may well do - in the future - only if it can get off the ground first.
Who here has been a victim of credit card fraud and lost a lot of money - I'm sure someone has. Point is your ID card needs strong encryption and a combination of Eye Scan and Fingerprint technology to work properly. These technologies aren't cheap! But would be given time.
Aready Chip & PIN has halved if not reduced credit card fraud by 70% across Europe.
Plus Many other countires already have them - and nobody there is complaining.
Life is Simpler.
13. Anonymous
Anonymous, Poland - the scenario you describe is fanciful. If you are losing blood fast then your entire medical history is completely and utterly irrelevant as you will die without emergency assistance to stop the bleeding and replace lost fluids. There are an incredibly small number of people who cannot accept O -ve blood, but it takes much longer for this to show up as a problem.
What the emergency services do need though is a way to contact your next of kin. This can be done by preceding contacts on your mobile with word ICE (or ICE1, ICE2 etc for multiple contacts. see http://www.icecontact.com.)
Our current system of multiple government IDs (NI, NHS, Passport, Driving License) might seem inefficient, but it makes ID theft harder. If your ID relies on one document alone then the compromise of this ID makes it hard for you to prove who you are.
14. James Green
Is the ID Card 'debate' really worth pursuing - debate implies discussion and reaching a decision. As the government has blindly refused to consider alternatives or accept the gaping flaws even as they are proven over and over again, surely we are simply in the early stages of the inevitable ID Card 'implementation'.
15. anonymous
Every debate is always worth pursing, regardless of whether it has become law or not as laws can be reversed over time.
In the light of the current Airline Terrorists, would it be easier to catch these people involved if they had an ID Card that stored all information including their travel plans in one single place, could we see where they shopped, ate and hung out?
Would crime completely dissappear?
I have no idea, but maybe we could slow it down.
Sorry the example with losing blood fast was not the best one - maybe some one else would like to play Devils Advocate and come up with a more acceptable scenario - hey maybe their phone gets smashed to smitherines and the only thing found is an ID Card?
And Besides if you wanted to take money out and secondary or tertiary method of verification would be required, fingerprint or eye scan - I'm pretty sure that not many people will go around lopping your finger off or cutting your eyes out if they wanted your ID card.