By Nick Heath, 23 January 2008 17:47
NEWS
The widespread introduction of ID cards has slipped back by two years, leaked Home Office documents have revealed.
The documents state cards will only be issued to most UK citizens from 2012 - two years later than previously stated for the crucial phase two of their introduction.
The Home Office insists the project is on track despite an earlier action plan pledge that cards would be issued in "significant" numbers to those renewing their passports from 2010.
In response to the documents leaked to the Conservatives, the Home Office said it had always stated the scheme will be rolled out incrementally.
A spokesman for the Identity and Passport Service said: "As stated in the strategic plan for the National Identity Scheme published in December 2006, we will begin issuing ID cards for foreign nationals this year and the first ID cards for British citizens in 2009."
Biometric passports were introduced on schedule in 2006 but the spokesman said it was reviewing the date for the introduction of the second generation biometric passport, which would include fingerprints.
Opponents have seized on the revelations as evidence that Gordon Brown's government is cooling towards ID cards.
Brown was already accused of wavering in his support for the scheme earlier this month when he reiterated the fact there will have to be another vote before parliament before ID cards become compulsory in the UK.
The status of the review of ID cards and other identity technology issues is also unknown, with chief secretary to the treasury Andy Burnham saying there is no fixed date for the publication of the Public-Private Forum on Identity Management report led by Sir James Crosby.
Simon Davies, director of Privacy International, welcomed the delay to the wholesale introduction of ID cards.
He said: "Clearly the home office has been listening to sensible advice for a change and decided that many of the original elements were unworkable by deciding on gradated introduction and with far fewer aspirations for the technology itself."
He warned that if the Home Office suffered a data breach similar to the spate of incidents in other government departments then it would kill off the system.
Comments
There are 8 comments. Join the discussion
1. Karen Challinor
sorry, but I still won't trust hmg to keep my personal data safe by 2012 either, the scale of procedural and systemic incompetence will take a lot longer to weed out, simply plugging the leaks to the press so there's no publicity is perfectly possible by this date however
plus HMG still won't made a case for this summary removal of my civil liberties which I will then have to submit to and pay for or become a criminal
plus the gatway reviews won't have surfaced by then either
plus the DP registrar will still be waiting for the power to inspect let alone the power to enforce
when is the next general election again ?
2. Phil
I don't see a problem with ID cards and the worry that they will lose data. Everyones data has been lost so many times already that it is all now in the public domain, so any further loss wont make any difference.
3. anonymous
I suggest that the database be started with all Home Office staff , Members of Parliament, The House of Lords and the Royal Family. If they and their chosen contractors can keep that information secure for 10 years, only then re-visit the idea for private citizens. Initially extend it to all government employees, the armed forces, the police and then to directors of public companies and lawyers. Basically, to anyone that can kick up a real stink if it goes wrong and whose personal data is worth stealing.
4. Simon
Ww all know it's just a ploy - push it far enough back and people will stop worrying about it. In the meantime, they'll keep spreading them a little bit further - each time using the "bogyman du jour" to inflict them on another small section of the population while everyone sits back and thinks "well, I don't like <them> so what does it matter". Just the same as they're doing with DNA profiles, and databases like (what used to be) the sex offenders register for SERIOUS CRIMINALS.
They came for the foreigners, I'm not a foreigner so I said nothing. They came for the passport holders, I don't have a passport so I said nothing. They came for the criminals, I'm not a criminal (yet) so I said nothing. They came for the sick, but I'm not sick (yet) so I said nothing. They came for the unemployed, but I'm not unemployed (yet) so I said nothing. They came for the newlyweds buying their house, but I'm not a newlywed so I said nothing.
So when are you going to say something ? When they come for you, and no-one says anything because there's no-one left ?
5. Karen Challinor
"I don't see a problem with ID cards and the worry that they will lose data. Everyones data has been lost so many times already that it is all now in the public domain, so any further loss wont make any difference."
but having the data in the public domain already, makes the idea of an ID card and associated NIR to keep the data safe ... um how can phrase this tactfully just a teeny bit pointless
so theres even less reason to spend the billions needed to develop the system or charge us for the card or submit to interrogations over your life history and inside leg measurements or have laws on the statute books promising eternal damnation if anything changes and you forget to notify the government before they find out on their own
is there ?
or were you being ironic ?
6. Haydn Rees
This project has many problems. Big problem and small problems.
Inept operational security is worrying but a small "red-herring" problem.
No buy in because nobody has had a public discussion of what ID cards are to /can / will be used for; this is a potential show stopper.
The design of the solution is a big pervasive problem.
Forget that it will be explosively expensive to implement, and relies on technology we haven't built yet, for a moment.
You don't authenticate this way.
Every card is forgable, and a potential point of system vulnerability/weakness. This means the system won't scale.
Put the effort into gathering biometrics with high confidence, and authenticating use of the system with high confidence.
Issuing me with an ID card which asserts that I have, for instance, retinae, is redundant. I have retinas - I carry them with me almost everywhere I go.
Why authenticate the retinal pattern on my card when you could authenticate my retinae? Anyone with the need/ duty/ responsibility to authenticate me will be getting a "reader" device anyway. Don't make it a card reader; make it a biometric reader. Authenticate them and the equipment strongly - the copper's retinal scan and a dongle would authorise them to access my data over an insecure data network.
Scan me and match the government's record of my biometrics (finger prints/ voice print/ facial topography/ etc) to the original.
Actually, no. That would never work. It's too elegant.
7. misceng
Haydn Rees should not rely on retinal scans even done locally. A group in USA has shown that a good photograph of someone elses eye with a hole in the middle to get reflection off the pupil can fool a retinal scan. This means that the criminal can still operate.
8. Karen Challinor
Haydn - beautiful solution but it won't work because the scanners that will be installed in public places will not be capable of the high resolution scans as these are far too expensive, it's far cheaper to read data off a card, and of course people can be legitemately charged for a card and they will pay, but try charging someone for having a retina or fingerprints and see if they pay then .... mind you there used to be jokes about a tax on the air you breathe and now we have trading in and taxes on carbon emissions which amounts to the same thing so I wouldn't put it past hmg to try charging us for having fingerprints at some stage
see I didn't go on about the loss of my civil liberties once and it's still a bad idea