By Tom Espiner, 5 May 2009 08:45
NEWS
MP David Blunkett, architect of the National Identity Scheme, has said there has been a "massive drop" in public confidence in ID cards.
Five years ago, most UK residents were in favour of the proposed cards, but this popular support has waned, Blunkett told silicon.com sister site ZDNet UK at the Infosecurity 2009 conference.
"For at least three years after we announced [ID cards], 75 or 80 per cent of the population were in favour," Blunkett said. "Over the last two years, we seem to have had a massive drop in confidence in the system."
The MP for Sheffield Brightside said the government has been outflanked by those putting the "worst-case scenario", and that those who were "scared" by ID cards had, in public forums, put forward a better case than that of the government.
Opposition to the scheme has been widespread. The Conservatives have said they would scrap ID cards, while privacy and civil liberties campaigners have been the most vocal opponents.
A single document combining a compulsory biometric passport with a driving licence would be more popular, according to Blunkett.
"We would immediately take the steam out of this, because we would demonstrate that we aren't talking about some new, frightening, untried scheme that would lead to all of our information being captured, all of our information being retained, and all of our information being shared," he said. "What we are talking about is just enough to be able to ensure that we identify ourselves correctly."
An Identity and Passport Service spokesperson said that the government still plans to introduce identity cards as planned.
"The government is committed to introducing ID cards, which will provide the public with a single, simple and secure way for individuals to prove their identity and safeguard their personal details," said the spokesperson. "The Home Secretary announced last year that as the National Identity Service rolls out in 2011/2012, we will be offering British citizens the choice of having an identity card, a passport, or both."
In April, the government admitted that while it has already started to issue ID cards to foreign nationals in the UK, no devices capable of reading the cards will be deployed at border entry points, job centres, or police stations until 2010.
Comments
There are 7 comments. Join the discussion
1. Jeremy Wickins
He still doesn't get it, does he? No-one has yet explained to me a) why any ID system is a greater benefit to me than it is to the government or anyone else that might want my information, b) how my data are going to be protected, who is responsible in the event of a leak, and how any loss is to be mitigated, and c) why they are adopting this particular scheme, which is known to be extremely flawed.
OK, I am starting from a low level - I don't see any need for ID cards at all. The UK has got along just fine without them for may years. Countries with ID cards tend to have been under the heel of an oppressive regime at some recent point in history. However, I'll start considering changing my mind when all those questions above are answered fully and honestly. Then, when a non-database solution is put on the table, I'll involve myself in sensible discussion, and not be part of the rebellious minority.
2. karen challinor
maybe the government would have better support if it had actually engaged in a debate on the cards, if it had responded to questions with answers instead of rhetoric and abuse, if it had not moved the goalposts every time a counter argument knocked down their current reason for having them, if it listened to experts like the LSE instead of going and finding it's own experts, if it hadn't steamrollered the bill through parliament with limited time debates and questions not being answered, if it hadn't .... oh you get the picture
and like Mr Wickins I will listen and participate in any proposal that is not compulsory and does not involve a database containing all my details
3. Radical Meldrew
It's funny how David Blunkett suddenly aligns himself with popular public opinion, especially as he is now knocking one of his own ministerial proposals down.
4. karen challinor
I'd also say it's not a "massive drop in public confidence" it's more a "massive increase in public awareness"
5. Richard
No! We don't need their crazy ID cards, their expensive Biometric Passports or their pointless E-Borders:
All of these ruinously expensive, dangerously intrusive projects and the rest of the current government's "Database State" should be cancelled immediately.
The savings from not importing these surveillance products and not paying the large salaries for unnecessary staff will help to reduce the current government's massive debt.
There is no valid reason why UK passports & visas should be so pricey.
How revealing that when the Mexican 'Flu scare first emerged, the government's fancy new E-Borders scheme didn't even have a passenger list for the plane which had carried the infected people - apparently, it had been deleted!
Who designed such a hopeless system?
Who sanctioned it?
6. Jeremy Wickins
He still doesn't get it, does he? No-one has yet explained to me a) why any ID system is a greater benefit to me than it is to the government or anyone else that might want my information, b) how my data are going to be protected, who is responsible in the event of a leak, and how any loss is to be mitigated, and c) why they are adopting this particular scheme, which is known to be extremely flawed.
OK, I am starting from a low level - I don't see any need for ID cards at all. The UK has got along just fine without them for may years. Countries with ID cards tend to have been under the heel of an oppressive regime at some recent point in history. However, I'll start considering changing my mind when all those questions above are answered fully and honestly. Then, when a non-database solution is put on the table, I'll involve myself in sensible discussion, and not be part of the rebellious minority.
7. drew stephenson
He says "we would demonstrate that we aren't talking about some new, frightening, untried scheme that would lead to all of our information being captured, all of our information being retained, and all of our information being shared"
Actually David that's exactly what you're talking about - or at least, that's exactly what your colleague Mrs Smith is talking about. Though obviously not in such plain language...