ID Cards on Trial: Politicians, academics and IT experts back our campaign

silicon.com is today launching its 'ID Cards on Trial' campaign, which aims to exert pressure on the government to address widespread concerns from politicians, academics, IT industry experts and independent professional bodies about the cost, scope and technology for the £5.8bn Identity Cards Bill.

This isn't about being against ID cards in principle or even about the much wider civil liberties argument but about ensuring that billions of pounds of taxpayers' money is not wasted on another failed government IT project.

The launch of our ID Cards on Trial campaign has been greeted with cries of support from a range of cross-party politicians, technical experts and professional bodies.

David Davis, Shadow Home Secretary, told silicon.com: "The ID cards scheme looks like it could turn into Labour's poll tax. When ID cards were suggested before the election we gave the government [a] chance to prove that the scheme was workable. But they still can't tell us how much ID cards would cost and whether the technology exists for the biometric database to be accurate and reliable.

"Only last week, the government admitted that the failure rate for recording details is highest amongst the most vulnerable people in our society. Why should a pensioner have to pay £100 - the equivalent of the winter fuel allowance - for an ID cards scheme that may raise more questions than it answers?"

Many Labour backbench MPs are still opposed to ID cards along with the Liberal Democrats who said: "The published costs do not yet include figures for the cost of the biometric enrolment machines or the card readers. In order to make the ID card system work, there will be a new national database of everyone in the UK. Even if an accurate database can be constructed, the errors will quickly mount up. Errors will result in people's cards being rejected and access to services being denied."

Concerns have also been raised by technology experts within the IT industry. Les Fraser, security development consultant at the British Computer Society, said the project's scope is too broad and that there are still serious question marks over the technology.

"When fully operational it is going to have to handle hundreds of requests a minute and a single centralised system is going to be complex," he said. "It has a better chance of being successful if the government keeps the design simple and the purpose clear. I think we are being very ambitious, and unless we keep it simple it will get bogged down in the complexities of trying to deliver too many services. I'm not sure the biometric technology to deliver this is quite there yet."

Neil Fisher, director of security solutions at former government defence research organisation QinetiQ, said the government is risking another massive IT disaster by pushing through such a complex project in such a short space of time.

"Nobody in the world has ever done an IT system of this size - ever. There is no dress rehearsal for this ID card project. They have got to get it right first time. There are a whole lot of variables that have not been risk reduced to a level we are comfortable with," he said.

Fisher added that the current ID card proposals represent a very expensive way of tracking 64 million people in order to keep tabs on a couple of thousand "bad guys".

The Law Society claims ID cards will have negligible impact on tackling terrorism or illegal working, despite the cost of implementing the scheme.

Edward Nally, president of the Law Society, told silicon.com: "The cost of keeping the identity card up-to-date and accurate will be enormously costly for everyone. Sophisticated terrorist networks would soon be able to produce counterfeit cards or papers enabling people to get legitimate cards and it would have little impact on illegal working as employers willing to break the law won't be put off."

The London School of Economics (LSE), which has already expressed concerns that the cost of the ID card scheme could triple from current government estimates, claims the idea of a single national identity register is flawed.

Dr Edgar A Whitley, reader in information systems at the LSE, said: "The underlying logic, of checking a person's ID to help address identity fraud, is a good one. However, implementing this as a single, national register of identity as the government plans to do is too problematic."

Beyond our campaign other organisations including the British Medical Association and the Confederation of British Industry have also been lobbying the government for more transparency, openness and clarity on ID cards before the scheme becomes law.