I think the point was the need for passports (which are an identity card of a kind) didn’t prove any kind of hurdle to terrorists. So why should any other kind of ID card make a difference?
Another thing the public don’t seem to realise is that it won’t be the Government and law enforcement who’ll just be demanding to see your card. Your bank, your supermarket, your employer, the post-office, your pharmacist, your ticket-collector. All of them will be demanding a swipe of your card, are you happy to share everything on it with them? Don’t want to share? Well fine, no bank account for you. No job either, or credit card, or car, or medicine, or season ticket. Get a card or go live in a cave! In fact, go live somewhere else entirely, cos we’re not entirely sure you’re a citizen any more.
The “80% in favour” have probably been given a nice, simple, unbiased opinion poll along the lines of:
Would you like to see
a) the introduction of identity cards, or
b) illegal immigrants coming over here to carry out acts of terrorism, steal your job, shoot your dog and rape your grandmother?
Vetch, you can carry on waiting for somebody to post something in favour of this cretinous idea … The only benefits I can see are 1) it appeals to that nitwit Blunkett’s authoritarian right-wing fantasies (what the hell did we do to deserve a Home Secretary like him?) and 2) it provides a new excuse to pour a few billion quids’ worth of taxpayers’ money into the already overflowing trough from which the incompetent PFI contractors feed … they kick back a small percentage towards Labour’s election campaign, and hey, everyone’s happy - except the voters, and we don’t count anyway.
Well, if I can put my serious hat on for a moment … that article suggests it’s more a case of “80% of the population could live with ID cards if they were introduced” than “80% of the population actually want ID cards”. Not that the government or the media will spin it that way.
Well, only last year there was some bill brought in here in Ireland to say that you had to have your driver’s license with you when you were driving. As this was a new development, maybe it was the first step in a cunning series of Government plans to bring in ID cards in Ireland without calling them ID cards.
Sneaky, eh?
The public says, in response to a poll, that ID cards are handy and useful and might have some benefit publicly and say its no big deal to such carry cards around.
Company wanting to manufacture and administer said system says: “People want national ID cards using our technology!”
Given that you all seem to be saying that the ID cards won’t work for their stated purposes (which I am inclined to agree with); What do you think the motives for bringing them in are?
Owl - Broadly anti card as it’s the sort of thing I associate with foreigners and as such am instictively agin it. I also think it’s like having to prove to one’s butler that one isn’t stealing one’s own silver. Innit?
It appeals to the authoritarian types who think they’re public masters rather than public servants - civil servants who would like everyone’s files accessible under a single heading, police officers who don’t like hearing a “no” when they ask if you’re carrying some form of ID - I’ve run into a few of those in my time. (I’m entirely law abiding, but I don’t carry around anything with my name and address on it. Why the **** should I? I know who I am and where I live … )
It’s money for old rope for the contractors who will implement it. (And “old rope” is about the quality we’ll be getting. Catching out illegal immigrants and criminals with fake ID? Forget it - either the validation system won’t work, or the coppers checking IDs won’t know how it’s supposed to work. Or, more probably, both.)
And, it’s a case of the politicians’ fallacy pointed out by Sir Humphrey Appleby: “Something must be done - this is something - therefore, this must be done.” Terrorism is a hot issue, illegal immigration another one (and one which has recently embarrassed the Dear Leader, so it demands action); the temptation is strong to take some measure which looks as though it will be a positive move in both cases. (Rather than, you know, actually trying to solve the problem, which would take time and effort and money … )
Well, there’s two possibilities. The first is that Blunkett is so stupid that he actually does believe the cards will achieve any of their stated objectives. Ignoring that possibility, then the major “benefit” of the cards as I see it is the chance to institute a national biometric database. Imagine if they had said to everyone that they must report to the nearest police station for fingerprinting. I don’t see 80% of the population being happy with that. Wrap it up in a whizzy gizmo however, claim it can tackle the two major public bogeymen of the day, terrorism and immigration, and voilá! You’ve got your database.
Damn you, Mr. Wright - I was waiting for a chance to use that quote
For crying out loud - every time I refresh the BBC website it gets worse - we’re apparently now to be fined £2,500 if we refuse to register. Charming. And apparently it’s to be a “civil penalty” to avoid “clever people becoming martyrs”. Fuck you, Mr. Blunkett.
Sorry about the double post but this is really pissing me off. And everywhere I look, I’m seeing this sort of thing:
So, to recap: you think it’s a great idea, except that you don’t want to pay for it and you don’t think it’ll work. Marvellous. That’s the sort of reasoning that 50% of young people in higher education has bought us.
Well, coming late to this thread, I would like to add:
Fuck you blunkett and bring on your fucking ‘civil penalty’ 'cos there is no way I will register for your little scheme.
Ahem,
This is just the latest incarnation of governments using the fear of terrorism to impose whatever the fuck they want and get the population to be thankful for it, on account of the fact that our beneficent leaders know what is best.
The chances of compulsory ID preventing a crime are absolutely minute, although one can see the attraction to Blunkett of having a database of the fingerpints of everyone in the country.
Will the last one out of the country please turn off the lights?
I think this is the point:
Quote:
Mr Blunkett said: "Even if the person didn’t carry the card, [the police] would be able to check their biometric automatically with the equipment. “It’s more than simply having a card. This is about true identity, being known, being checkable, being used in order to ensure we know who is in the country, what they’re entitled to and whether they’re up to no good.”
As Dead Badger stated, it’s the database he’s after. An ID card is purely the means of compiling it.
I notice that he didn’t elaborate on how checking someone against the database can tell you…“whether they’re up to no good”.
Blunkett seems to have an obsessive desire to have his name in the papers every day, he’s the king of knee-jerk reactions. This however is a lot more insidious than that.
One thing about this latest Blunkett misadventure that amazes me though, is how some people have reacted to the proposed cost of the cards. One guy said “If the government want to bring these cards in then let them pay for it. I don’t see why we should.”
Yeah, let the government put their hands in their pockets to pay for it. After all they have lots of money.
I don’t actually have a big problem with ID cards; I carry idetinfying documents of other kinds at all times anyway and as long as they are actually useful (for things like signing up at a library or video rental shop, I can’t think of any really good objections.
I do find Blunkett a deeply scary man though; my impression is that he has just tried to push one radical scheme after another (trial without jury anyone?) - I think he just wants to see (well, feel, I suppose) his name in the history books as ‘the man who changed everything’.
This is precisely why I think they’re proposing them, rather than just having a fingerprint-fest: on their face, they seem kind of useful. A unified ID for our purposes might well be a good idea. But actually, this already exists - pretty much everyone in the country has a passport and anyone who wants one can get one. The video rental will still want proof of address, meaning utility bills - ID cards won’t change that. As far as I can see, the only practical benefit to the population in terms of convenience is that an ID card will fit in your wallet. To my mind this isn’t worth £3bn of our money.
I’m not trying to have a go at you, but please ask yourself - how would you feel if the ID card were not on the table, but you had instead been asked to head to the nearest police station for fingerprinting - just so they can keep tabs on you. The cards you carry at the moment are at your own convenience. We are now being required to carry them for the convenience of the police; we must pay £35 for the privilege of proving that we are not criminals.
Incidentally, I see that MORI are running the trials, and are soliciting volunteers. While I realise that the trials are also aimed at logistical fact-finding, I wonder what the chances are that they’ll trot out a happy statistic at the end. “Look, our trial group (that just happened to consist of people who wanted the cards) thinks they’re great! You will too!”
My cryptography lecturer once said, “Any system is only as secure as its weakest link.” The links are so weak here, it terrifies me. Terry Gilliam’s Brazil, anyone?
Information and access to the database will have to be available to literally millions. And yet somehow this is supposed to make us more secure and to make subversion less likely. Sure. When you ARE your card and those cards can be forged by anyone with half a link to the underground, we’ll see how much more secure we’ll be.
And the civil liberties! Oh my fucking god. Of course “innocent” people should have nothing to fear. Except being hassled for their fucking card of course. But how many people really are totally innocent anyway? In the moral if not legal sense. Because once this database kicks off, you better assume everyone knows everything about you.
How exactly do I prove who I am. I know who I am. My Mother definately knows who I am. My wife and kids take my word for it, but really how can I prove, that I am who I claim to be? I’ve got credit cards, driving licence, birth cert etc. but they don’t prove anything really
Surely any such system is only as good as the evidence that supports it? Given that it is reasonably easy to get hold of GENUINE (stolen) passports and driving licences, and birth certificates prove precisely fuck-all how do they establish identity?
In fact I am probably resonably easy to establish - I am a home owner, council tax payer, product of the British education system etc. In other words I have a checkable 40 year history. However what if I was from a marginal group or a recent immigrant?
Fingerprint information is trumpeted as a ‘biometric’ that’ll make these ID cards unforgeable and secure. Fingerprinting isn’t as fool-proof as they’d have you believe.
See here* for an article of what happens when the authorities (in the case the police) have your fingerprints and know, despite all common sense, where you’ve been and what you’ve done.
This is what happens when a unique identifier is wrong. This is what happens when the authorities have to pretend their system is infallible. Now imagine what a forged or incorrect ID card could land you in.
*To summerize: this is the story of a Police Woman who was arrested and prosecuted by her own police force because she would not admit in court to a set of fingerprints at a crime scene being hers. (She wasn’t a suspect, it was to eliminate them being anyone elses.) But they weren’t hers and she wasn’t going to lie about it. But if the police had admitted that it would call into question all their other fingerprint evidence. So rather than expose their fingerprinting as flawed, they charged her with lying under oath. Although found completely innocent, the whole saga has cost her job and she is now threatened with bankrupcy.
