ID cards
Highlighting the gains, limiting the pain. That is what seems to be about. Ministers are aware that when Tony Blair mounted his pulpit to proclaim the virtue of ID cards and "biometrics" he looked like a man with blind faith in the latest technological wheeze rather than someone with a practical case about how the cards might help change all our lives for the better.
Thus, today's strategy:
鈥 Targets foreigners (or, at least, those from outside the EU) and people working in sensitive locations, such as airports, for the first compulsory ID cards. You can hear ministers at the next election asking their opponents - "Would you rather we didn't know who was coming here and we didn't check on those with the access to place a bomb on a plane?"
鈥 Lures young people to apply for a card to help them apply for a bank account, accommodation or a loan. I await publication of the strategy to see if it answers the question "Will you be able to get a student loan without being finger printed and, if so, how much harder will it be?"
鈥 Seeks to convince the rest of us that ID cards will be a "stronger, safer, more convenient way" to protect our identity.
鈥 Reassures people that we won't have to carry the card and, indeed, could do without the things altogether if we're happy to use our passport (or something else carrying our fingerprints) as an identity document instead.
Postpones any discussion of making ID cards compulsory for all a long way into the future - probably after the election after the next one
Opponents will insist that "it's the database, stupid". In other words, what matters is not the card itself but the storing of your fingerprint and other data by the state and the growing demands that you should produce them to go about your ordinary business.
The polls - once overwhelmingly in favour of ID cards (on the "I've got nothing to hide" argument) recently tipped over to opposition ("You can't trust them with your data").
By stopping the preaching of her old boss and adopting the reassuring tones of a bank manager Jacqui Smith is hoping to tip those polls back again.
Update: Fascinating new insight into last night's Commons vote from the team at . Cameron suffered a big rebellion last night with Eurosceptics marching into the lobbies with Bill Cash ignoring their Master's Voice.
I'm 
Comments
I always thought that it was odd that the government received so much criticism for not knowing how many illegal immigrants there are in the country. It's not as if there's a gate they come through at customs, where they can be counted. And once they're in, how do you distinguish a British citizen from an illegal immigrant? Because under the proposals outlined in bullet point number 1, you are by default a British citizen unless you can produce an ID card or a DNA sample that says otherwise.
The whole 'trusting them with our data' argument has come about because we now place intrinsic value on such things as our date of birth and home address, because they can be used to obtain credit. Personally I'd quite like it if I had to produce an ID card to obtain credit instead. That way, any data that the government holds (and loses) is valueless to the prospective fraudster.
MPs are revolting. No news there.
I am a non EU national and between this and the new proposed citizenship laws, I'm starting to feel persecuted! I have never been in support of ID cards ever.
I do not trust the government to hold my extremely personal data securely, nor do I want to be fingerprinted for doing the things I normally do. For once I wish Labour would listen to the public (whose votes they depend on I might add!) instead of doing something that lines their pockets. I wouldn't be surprised if they come out and say that we have to pay for our ID cards on top of everything else.
Since it was a free vote, it can not be a rebellion...
To reveal that in the Tory party there are a lot of eurosceptics willing to express themselves in a free vote is hardly news...
If Ken Clarke had been joined by other 40 tories voting with the government that would have been!
In 2007 two scientists implemented Shor's algorithm on a Quantum computer. ssentially what this means to the lay person is that the fundamental building blocks of todays encryption systems used by governments and banks has been cracked !
Bearing in mind the development cycle of quantum computer systems and their likely spread Its highly possible that within the next 5 - 10 years the system will be have been refined to such a level that NO tradintional encryption system is secure.
That will fall just in time to be used against the UK's national ID system.
We are being led down a path by idiots who know nothing about system security or encryption etc When will the people of this country wake up and stand up to this snooping centralist big brother government !
As the website you cite makes clear, there was no Conservative backbench whip on the Cash amendment. So it doesn't really count as a rebellion. The fact that some backbenchers are more Euro-sceptic than the leadership is hardly revelatory. Perhaps you should get out more
Nick
You are absolutely spot on with your assessment of Tony Blair's motivation to use new technology rather than meet a requirement. Does no one in this government have the balls to pull the plug on this pointless project?
This desperation to find new requirements for an inititative in full swing (into which enormous amounts of cash have been poured) is palpable.
Close the wretched thing down you fools...
Following the Northern Rock debacle, I would have thought that the last thing a minister in this government would aspire to is 'the reassuring tones of a bank manager'.
Besides, we're not that stupid. We know that they are all lying, incompetent bunglers.
As for the 'big rebellion' against Cameron: it was a free vote. This is political reporting equivalent of "Small earthquake in Chile. No-one hurt".
ID Cards, like many things, are neutral. If the system is implemented well and used responsibly it should compare well to the present system where identity theft, fraud, and inefficiencies are off the dial. By taking a more restrained approach Jacqui Smith is able to put a workable system in place and reassure people so a more complete solution down the line is much more achievable. Arguing and posturing aside, nothing sells like a demonstration.
I've commented, before, that Jacqui Smith has a similar personality to Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which compares well to the classic Daoist and Zen Buddhist masters of history. They had a remarkable ability to squeeze elephants through keyholes and this step in the ID card process in no less remarkable. One is left standing back to admire the government's flair in making policy meat fall from the bone in a manner that looks almost easy.
Another level to this is the major ISP's fighting government attempts to implement necessary crime prevention mechanisms while those same ISP's are implementing a remarkably similar system, called Phorm, which sells customers browsing history to marketers against their wishes and in breach of the data protection act. My ISP, Virgin Media, has tried to pull this by stealth and I hope the Home Secretary deals with them equally firmly.
The FCO already captures bio info from non EU residents requiring a visa so how is this new? By the way the FCO has been proved to not be so hot at safguarding this info either!
Surprise, surprise - there's NOTHING in all this about the costs.
Nick, what's the latest estimate of the cost of this scheme? And what could we do with the money that'd be saved by scrapping ID cards - eg defence spending, saving post offices??
I must confess that I wasn't aware that you could have a "big rebellion" on a free vote, which that one was as far as the Tories were concerned.
PS "unbiased" doesn't actually mean you have to end with a swipe (accurate or in this case otherwise) at Cameron every time you don't suck up to the Government in the rest of the blog.
It really is the database, stupid, and this point cannot be stressed strongly enough. The government's own strategy for making the National Identity Register pay for itself involves selling access to your details. That combined with the use of your NIR ID as a key into every other government database going is, frankly, pretty terrifying.
Has anybody as yet tried to clarify WHY we actually need these? I thought it was widely disproved that ID cards would prevent terrorism.
It is the guardians of the data that are proving themselves to be untrustworthy / incapable of protecting public interests - and the safeguarding of our lives is of interest to us!
Surpriase, surprise - there's NOTHING in all this about the costs.
Nick, what's the latest estimate of the cost of this scheme? And what could we do with the money that'd be saved by scrapping ID cards - eg defence spending, saving post offices??
It appears that most people abhor the idea of identity cards, some even claiming that it is an assault on civil liberties. Fair enough,it might even be so. But what is interesting is that no one seems to be complaining about the civil liberties of foreigners.
Making ID cards compulsory for foreigners will only perpretate the belief that they are all potential threats that need to be closely monitored.
IC cards have the potential to add yet another component to an infrastructure which already lends itself to abuse by government and others with access to the system. I am completely unconvinced by any of the arguments for ID cards. I will not carry an ID card voluntarily and although my local MP will support anything the government puts forward, I have written to her expressing my anger at the proposals. Students are to be offered ID cards - I hope they still have the radical instincts which would rebel against such an offer. I am also hopeful that public instincts will make the plan about as popular as the Poll tax.
I wonder how much money the home office is willing to spend on this white elephant.
It'll be interesting to find out the amount of public funds that the government will spend on saving face and pushing through some version of the original scheme rather than admitting they should have climbed down and binned the absurd scheme years ago.
I'm relatively new to politics but already have learnt that in whitehall it seems it's politically better to keep piling coal into the engines of a sinking Titanic than admit you were wrong and start manning the lifeboats.....or is that metaphor a little too vague.
ID cards simply have to be stopped, it has nothing to do with how the state stores our data, which it pretty much has anyway, and everything to do with the state demanding its citizens to prove themselves to it.
Frankly, it's my state, not theirs. They should be proving themselves to me, not the other way around. Which they don't by the way. Ever, it's all cloak and daggers and the no one has a clue what they get up to in reality.
On the issue of Cameron. Their is a reason why no one else is reporting this, it was a free vote. How can you have a rebellion on a free vote? The front bench line was to stay neutral on the issue and so as to let the members decide and avoid being tagged one way or the other.
You can't say Cameron faced a rebellion if he didn't tell anyone to do anything.
So the current government who choose not to trust decision of the electorate on our EU status think the electorate ought to trust them with id cards. its just absurd!
Jacqui Smith said this monring on the 大象传媒's Today programme that "The database won't be on the Internet, so it couldn't be hacked into".
It really is time that this Government got a few people who understand technology - especially IT.
Pentagon and NASA systems weren't "on the internet", but they were still hacked into.
If a card using biometric data were to be of any use, each time it were employed then those data would have to be checked.
So what is the timetable for rolling out fingerprint analysis devices - and links to the central database -to all airport access points and banking institutions' branches?
Biometric databases will be hacked into. Once you steal someone else's name to go with your bio-details, you will have a perfect identity theft!
At present, identity is borrowed - tomorrow it could be permanent.
I would welcome the chance to pay all MPs 拢250,000 p.a. if they promised only to come to parliament to legislate for 2 weeks a year. That should close down the time frame for introducing stupid initiatives.
Why doesn't anyone ask the Home Secretary what the downside for the British Public will be with the proposed introduction of ID cards. Presumably she will have considered both sides? That would be an enlightning exchange of views...
An individual from outside the EU is issued with an Id card. A week later he is asked to produce it. "I'm not from outside the EU so I don't have one". We can't prove the accuracy of his statement because, unless everyone in the country is issued with and is obliged to carry the card at all times, we have no way of determining if he should be carrying it unless we check his biometrics against the central register. Effectively we introduce compulsory biometric checks on everyone to determine if they should have a card. Totally impractical.
Nice to see ministers move away from the threat of terror as a reason to introduce ID cards and towards protecting our wallets - you know, something people actually care about.
Listening to the Home Secretary, she said the ID Database would not be online. How then would data be inserted and accessed by the appropriate authorities (whoever they will turn out to be). Any supposed secure data link can be intercepted. Anyone who has or does work in computer systems (as I have) is well aware that someone somewhere will break the security in place, look at chip and pin as an example. This database WILL be accessed by the unauthorised.
There is just so much bunk on biometrics "preventing ID fraud". They won't because they can only stop fraud in face-to-face transactions where you bring your fingers along. Face-to-face transactions are a tiny percentage of business today. How will ID cards help in getting a bank account from an online bank? Or preventing your credit card used in an online shop? Going to pop your fingers and eyeballs in the post?
Nick, when are you going to ask a minister about this? They keep yackking on about how ID cards will prevent ID theft, yet no-one presses them on the details and the media just accept their assertions. I know ministers are congenitally incapable of doing details, but come on!
Or are you just waiting for it to fall apart and then watch the ministers squirm and be sacked?
Nick,
you hit the nail on the head when you say:
"Opponents will insist that "it's the database, stupid". In other words, what matters is not the card itself but the storing of your fingerprint and other data by the state and the growing demands that you should produce them to go about your ordinary business."
I don't think that Jacqui Smith or anyone else in Brown's government understands that we don't trust them one iota with our personal biometric details. Nor does anyone really imagine that terrorist attacks will come to halt simply because some of us are carrying the right "papers".
This is an Orwellian nightmare, no wonder it's fullest implementation is being pushed backwards beyond the next election in the sure knowledge that the Tories will come along and (hopefully) dismantle the machinery.
If there's no way the Government can get EU citizens living perfectly legally in the UK to have ID cards, it is discriminatory to force British citizens to have them. EU citizens will presumably continue showing their passports to prove their identity - why will this not be good enough for British citizens? I know the Government says it will mostly not be compulsory for people to have them, but Government plans now do look like compulsion by the back door. And there's still absolutely no explanation as to how ID cards will prevent terrorism, fraud etc. etc. - so why have them at all?
What has the law abiding citizen got to lose by having an ID card. Some liberal sceptics and do-gooders would appease Bin-Laden himself given the chance. Why make it easy for terrorists and fraudsters to hit you where it hurts most. If you own a house you lock it and supply keys to those you trust, not provide copies to burglarsareus.co.uk. 'No Brainer' as far as I'm concerned.
Interesting update regarding the so called Cameron rebellion. No mention is made that this was only regarding one clause (No 9) in the whole debate.
In addition, the Revolts.co.uk website also says that it was a free vote and only front bench tory mps were required to follow their leaders wish for an abstention. All did.
Therefore the 40 backbench MPs who did not abstain were free to do so.
I notice that only 3 tory mps voted with the goverment on the main issue - interestingly Bill Cash and the other eurosceptics would have done as the motion was to force a referendum.
As the site itself was quoted it would have been useful to get all the facts correct - I presume you will do a further update shortly Nick so that the public are not mislead further.
By far the biggest argument against ID cards is the fact that the government will, in effect, be licensing the very existence of the populace. The foundations of democracy do tend to suggest that they exist with our permission, not the other way around. If I was an airport worker, I would be looking for another job, (or a belt sander) right about now.
Apart from anything else Ms Smith appears to be technologically utterly illiterate. On this morning's Today she actually said that there was no way the ID database could be hacked because it "won't be online"! Good Grief - and of course the "of course I'm British - I can prove it because I DON'T have an ID card" plan is just brilliant. I'd much rather take a sheaf of bills to the bank than let the government (any government) loose with my id details and profile. Please can we see Smith vs Angell soon - it'd be better than cage fighting......
Well I don鈥檛 buy it. They are simply changing to salamie tactics but remain as determined as ever to force these on us
I view ID cards as something that an authoritarian government wants to impose on us, They will be irrelevant in fighting terror or crime and I don鈥檛 see how they will make our lives easier but they will be an enormously powerful tool in the hands of a malicious government that wishes to control the population. ID cards could for example be used to stop certain people accessing healthcare or employment at the click of a mouse. The act of cancelling the card would be to make life impossible and could be used against people that though innocent of any crime have simply annoyed people in power
This scheme will be phenomenally expensive to operate, and will, according to every IT expert not on the payroll, result in our data falling into the wrong hands, With consequences like having your fingerprints and DNA planted at crime scenes and your ID stolen for the whole of your life. Thus even those who have nothing to hide will have plenty to fear from these cards or rather the data base behind them
It speaks volumes that at a time when public spending is supposed to be tight, when troops have died for lack of body armour when the trains cant run on time and we are crying out for more social housing that the government remains determined to impose these on us at the cost of billions that could otherwise be spent on the things people actually pay taxes for and despite the fact that the lives of some of those the profess to represent will be permanently blighted by them
What has the law abiding citizen got to lose by having an ID card. Some liberal sceptics and do-gooders would appease Bin-Laden himself given the chance. Why make it easy for terrorists and fraudsters to hit you where it hurts most. If you own a house you lock it and supply keys to those you trust, not provide copies to burglarsareus.co.uk. 'No Brainer' as far as I'm concerned.
Surprise, surprise - there's NOTHING in all this about the costs.
Nick, what's the latest estimate of the cost of this scheme? And what could we do with the money that'd be saved by scrapping ID cards - eg defence spending, saving post offices??
Personally, Mr Walker, I already have a passport to prove my citizenship, which I can also use when asking for credit, as does 80% of the British population.
ID cards are illiberal, intrusive, unworkable, unnecessary and obscenely expensive!
1. At 11:31 AM on 06 Mar 2008, Chris Walker wrote:
And once they're in, how do you distinguish a British citizen from an illegal immigrant?
Simple - either a British passport with further evidence such as Drivers licence, Birth certificate, NHS number, National Insurance number, addressed utility bills... and so on...
SAY NO to this corrupt government. Try jailing the whole population - I'll be first in the queue.
How do you prove your identity to get an ID card.
Or is it just a listing of theses fingerprints and this face go with this name and number? After we are just numbers to the system.
The problem with basing the argument heavily on the safety and security side is this;
What about EU nationals? It's all very well cataloguing non-EU citizens and trying to do the same with British citizens but it falls down completely with EU nationals.
How will we record them and their migrant status. If the answer is simply via their passports then we don't need ID cards, do we?
Do the Poles, Czechs, Dutch, Belgians etc have ID cards or biometric passports. No. Let's hope they don't ever produce any threats to our security or add to illegal immigration then.
Chris King has it exactly right. On Radio 5 Live this morning Jacqui Smith stated that only a small number of individuals would have access to the database, completely failing to recognise that every biometric terminal would have to have to. Every terminal adds one more potential point of failure in the security surrounding the database. When will politicians learn that making glib comments about technology that they clearly don't understand just makes them look foolish.
I thought this daft idea was finally dead? Yet they keep resurrecting it time and time again.
I thought we now had adequate evidence to prove that "the powers that be" are totally unable to safeguard our private, personal data. So rather than safeguarding us against ID theft, the central identity database will be a "one stop shop" for anyone wishing to pull off any kind of ID related misdeeds.
It definitely IS "the database, stupid". I have no objection to carrying an ID card, as it would be very useful, but I have very strong reasons why I don't want all of my ID-related details stored on a central ID database. So the idea really is poorly conceived, dangerously flawed and likely to cost many billions of pounds more than anyone is prepared to admit.
Why can't they just see sense and bury it once and for all? Oh, I forgot, they're politicians.
The problem with basing the argument heavily on the safety and security side is this;
What about EU nationals? It's all very well cataloguing non-EU citizens and trying to do the same with British citizens but it falls down completely with EU nationals.
How will we record them and their migrant status. If the answer is simply via their passports then we don't need ID cards, do we?
Do the Poles, Czechs, Dutch, Belgians etc have ID cards or biometric passports. No. Let's hope they don't ever produce any threats to our security or add to illegal immigration then.
So ID cards will control illegal immigrants? I don't think so; by their nature "illegal" immigrants do illegal things like getting illegal ID Cards (If it can be made by mankind, it can be forged by a well-equipped criminal)
Our Lords and Masters are making the measurable things important (I will be forced to carry a card because I am a law-abiding middle class person and I have a lot to lose if I don't subject myself to government demands)rather than the important things measurable (if someone is in this country, and we had leak-proof boundaries you could be sure they were entitled)
Rather than wasting money on IT that won't work (as shown by most other Govt IT projects) lets tighten up the boundaries. This provides a "gate" through which specific people can be examined and managed, rather than trying to measure the whole population (and losing the support of the people because of the perceived presumption of guilt that goes with mandatory ID cards.
I am British but my wife is American, we were married in this country some 25 yrs ago and have lived and worked here ever since. She will be one of the first to have to get an ID card. It is only right that as a potential terrorist she is monitored closely. Meanwhile those like the 7th July bombers won't need ID cards because they are assumed to be good upstanding citizens.
Mrs Smith's plan makes me feel a lot safer already!
How short memory is. ID cards are NOT neutral (as suggested above).
I was watching an episode of World At War the other day with Dutch citizens saying how they thought nothing of being given ID cards by their new German administrators. Until they realised too late that it was the perfect instrument to filter out the Jewish population.
It's nothing to do with terrorism or what individuals have to hide, it鈥檚 ALL to do with the fact that can you trust all future governments to be benign. What a gift the new ID card will be to any forthcoming government with an extreme agenda. Or does it even need to be 鈥渆xtreme鈥? I note that the Jacqui softly softly approach is already discriminating citizens who have the right to be here but aren鈥檛 EU nationals.
While we are about it, we should seal off those tax havens in Liechtenstein and certain British territories. Those ID numbers might be just the thing to pin down who鈥檚 sending their money to the vaults. I鈥檓 fed up with paying tax while rich toffs get off with it. I feel like taking a 鈥渢ax holiday鈥 myself, unless things improve markedly.
The problem with basing the argument heavily on the safety and security side is this;
What about EU nationals? It's all very well cataloguing non-EU citizens and trying to do the same with British citizens but it falls down completely with EU nationals.
How will we record them and their migrant status. If the answer is simply via their passports then we don't need ID cards, do we?
Do the Poles, Czechs, Dutch, Belgians etc have ID cards or biometric passports. No. Let's hope they don't ever produce any threats to our security or add to illegal immigration then.
Funny how this so-called news story about ID cards has been released today, after a massive betrayal of the election promises made in 2005. Coincidence surely not?
When data is collected, it doesn't matter what its stated use is: the fact is, once it's collected it is there.
Parliament cannot bind its future decisions, so they can give no assurances about the future use of this data. For this reason alone, the data should never be collected in the first place.
I used to be in favour of the principle of ID cards, however two issues changed my mind. First as a computer programmer, I KNOW that the system will be hacked and the repercussions of fraud within the context of a system pressumed to be 'fool-proof' will be significant for the victims. Secondly, due to a genetic condition, I have no fingerprints, so where does that leave me?
Jacqui Smith asserted that "you have to prove your identity anyway, using a sheaf of utility bills when you apply for a mortgage." Does she really think she can sell this pernicious scheme on the grounds of mere convenience? And does she not think we can distinguish between address verification in a private financial transaction and involuntary listing in a government database?
I have never voted Conservative in my life but would make an exception to thwart this autocratic plan. I hope it precipitates a tipping point of poll tax proportions, which will finally draw a line under this government's relentless erosion of our privacy.
If there's no way the Government can get EU citizens living perfectly legally in the UK to have ID cards, it is discriminatory to force British citizens to have them. EU citizens will presumably continue showing their passports to prove their identity - why will this not be good enough for British citizens? I know the Government says it will mostly not be compulsory for people to have them, but Government plans now do look like compulsion by the back door. And there's still absolutely no explanation as to how ID cards will prevent terrorism, fraud etc. etc. - so why have them at all?
Listening to the Home Secretary she constantly refers to using the ID card when applying for a bank account or job etc.
Ok i have my card with all of my details on it including fingerprint and eye scans and then go to the bank. I present the card and then what? I presume the bank clerk would take my card to confirm that i am the true person who owns it. Exactly how will she or he do that? Technology for taking fingerprints and eye scanning must therefore be in each bank to do this.
Take the 'applying for the job' scenario. I run a small organisation with 25 people and if i get a job applicant do i have to have fingerprint and eye scanners too?
Who is going to pay for the equipment and staff training to use it? I cannot see the Government footing this bill and are more likely to say to businesses that 'its your cost'. Thanks!
Do we really think that every business and/or bank going to have this facility?
Have we seen yet seen the true full cost of this fruitless exersise? I dont think so for obviuous reasons
Funny how this so-called news story about ID cards has been released today, after a massive betrayal of the election promises made in 2005. Coincidence surely not?
When data is collected, it doesn't matter what its stated use is: the fact is, once it's collected it is there.
Parliament cannot bind its future decisions, so they can give no assurances about the future use of this data. For this reason alone, the data should never be collected in the first place.
ID cards simply have to be stopped, it has nothing to do with how the state stores our data, which it pretty much has anyway, and everything to do with the state demanding its citizens to prove themselves to it.
Frankly, it's my state, not theirs. They should be proving themselves to me, not the other way around. Which they don't by the way. Ever, it's all cloak and daggers and the no one has a clue what they get up to in reality.
On the issue of Cameron. Their is a reason why no one else is reporting this, it was a free vote. How can you have a rebellion on a free vote? The front bench line was to stay neutral on the issue and so as to let the members decide and avoid being tagged one way or the other.
You can't say Cameron faced a rebellion if he didn't tell anyone to do anything.
ID cards are a truly apalling concept. They are being stealthily foisted upon the citizens of the UK by a morally bankrupt and incompetent government. I sincerely doubt if it will prevent terrorism.
When data is collected, it doesn't matter what its stated use is: the fact is, once it's collected it is there.
Parliament cannot bind its future decisions, so they can give no assurances about the future use of this data. For this reason alone, the data should never be collected in the first place.
ID cards are a truly apalling concept. They are being stealthily foisted upon the citizens of the UK by a morally bankrupt and incompetent government. I sincerely doubt if it will prevent terrorism.
Nick, this constant mantra by the government that there is a majority of the public in support of ID cards is nonsense. Every TV programme, such as Question Time, where the audience has been asked if they want ID cards has shown that well over 90% are against the idea.
It may well be that biometrics on a card can conclusively prove that its carrier is its rightful owner but in no way can it prove that the data held about the owner is accurate.
In internet transactions, the owner of a card does not even have to be present, so how can an ID card protect against this type of fraud?
The truth is that ID cards were dreamed up by the discredited Tony Blair as another of his half baked authoritarian measures and the weak and immature members of the present government haven't got the guts to abandon it altogether.
I've always been against the ID card concept because no one has explained to me why it is the best solution to the problems that it purportedly solves. But I think the 'NO' voice founders because this is going to happen, and just saying 'it's not a good idea' isn't enough. There must be a positive reason why it is bad, and that was missing until the Civil Service showed how poor they are at data security. But the nagging doubt still remains - for most of my colleagues 'I have nothing to hide' is enough to let this be pushed through. What I would like to understand is why it is wanted so badly - and why 'a snooping, centralist big brother' is unarguably a bad thing. Unpleasant yes, but what actually is the solid argument against this? Without that, ID cards are inevitable.
Why do people insist on suggesting that ID cards will stop terrorism, or even illegal immigration? Spain had ID cards at the time of their terroist attack and 7/7 was carried out by british citizens (and so would easily get ID cards).
It is a complete nonsense. ID cards are a way of controlling the law abiding masses, not the criminal minority who will either create fake ID cards or assume someone elses identity and apply for one.
As the home secretary says, we already have passports, so why do we need ID cards as well? Waste of time and money.
ID cards are a red herring. We've had 'id cards' for years in the form of passports, driving licences, debit cards etc. No database can be completely secure because at some point someone has to enter the information in (incorrectly) and interpret it (incorrectly!). The idea that somehow a terrorist/criminal will use a genuine ID card is laughable, nevermind the fact that EVERYTHING WE DO will be running through searchable databases. I don't want the government or anyone else to know what i'm doing, not because I can't be trusted but because THEY can't be trusted.
"something else carrying our fingerprints"....
Such as my fingers, you mean? Would that do?
Anyone who wants to see how ID cards will be introduced and made compulsory by stealth can read the whole strategy document on Wikileaks.
PS "Can't be hacked because it won't be on the internet" - give me a break. Is that the advice from the IT dept or just Jacqui Smith winging it? Either way, someone should be out of a job.
Another government database to lose. How long before we hear about lost CDs again?
Actually Chris King she said it won't be "online", but your points stand - she really doesn't get it at all.
There will the tens of thousands of input devices around the country - in police stations, banks at airports... that level of connectivity demands a highly networked and distributed system, and intrustion opportunities will be directly proportional to the level and number of access systems - of *course* it will be hackable. But in truth, the most vulnerable part of the system will be admin staff - as at the DVLA, they will be bought.
"Today's strategy" fails completely with me and unfortunately for Jacqui Smith, today's bank managers are seen as anything but re-assuring. ID cards have the potential to add yet another component to an infrastructure which already lends itself to abuse by government and others with access to the system. I am completely unconvinced by any of the arguments for ID cards. I will not carry an ID card voluntarily and although my local MP will support anything the government puts forward, I have written to her expressing my extreme unhappiness at the plans. If students are to be offered ID cards I hope they still have the radical instincts which should make them rebel against such an offer. The foreign nationals category may sway some but with its overtones of scapegoating, I am hopeful not too many. I am also hopeful that public instincts will finally make the plan about as popular as the Poll tax.
Jacqui Smith asserted that "you have to prove your identity anyway, using a sheaf of utility bills when you apply for a mortgage." Does she really think she can sell this pernicious scheme on the grounds of mere convenience? And does she not think we can distinguish between address verification in a private financial transaction and involuntary listing in a government database?
I have never voted Conservative in my life but would make an exception to thwart this autocratic plan. I hope it precipitates a tipping point of poll tax proportions, which will finally draw a line under this government's relentless erosion of our privacy.
When data is collected, it doesn't matter what its stated use is: the fact is, once it's collected it is there.
Parliament cannot bind its future decisions, so they can give no assurances about the future use of this data. For this reason alone, the data should never be collected in the first place.
Being dead-set against ID cards for myself, it would by hypocritic if I approved them for non-eu immigrants or people working in airports.
The Government may have abandoned the brute force method, but is now into the dripping tap and will, inch by inch persuade, cajole or force acceptance of credit cards.
If the airport workers stand up to this (and bearing in mind the effect should they be dismissed en masse or go on strike they have the power) then we can kill this idea dead: stone dead.
if they don't then it will be that much easier to implement and that much harder to resist.
I often wander what the point of debate is.
Whether you subscribe to conspiracy theories or not, what is clear is that a fixed European agenda is being rolled out, steam-rollering over any illusory mechanisms of 'democracy' or reasoned debate.
Whether it's the Constitution - sorry, I mean 'Treaty' - or whether its ID cards. All brought in by stealth.
ID cards are inevitable. There is nothing we can do to stop them short of rioting in the streets (and I despair at the pathetic apathy of the British populus in this regard). It will be like having a credit rating; not compulsary, but you try living in today's world without one.
Private Fraser was right: "We're all doomed".
Implanted micro-chips are not far off. God save us (cos the people wont).
The government's proposed id cards actually are very similar to the "internal passport" system used in the old Soviet Union. See for more information.
What is Smith proposing as a punishment for not carrying an id card? If there is no requirement to carry it then it just gets put in a drawer and forgotten about. If asked for it, it would not be unreasonable to expect the holder to have lost it somewhere. However if I must carry it, what happens if the police suspect I am a non EU migrant and I dont have my card with me? will I be arrested as in Japan? How will they know? my accent? My skin colour? the shape of my eyes?
Why are they still pushing this? Changing the tone and the approach makes no difference to me if the end result is the same, ie a national identity card, which will eventually become compulsory, it has to, otherwise why bother if only some people have it? The 'nothing to hide nothing to fear' brigade parrot that slogan without thinking about it. Go and have your special citizen number tatooed on your forehead if you think it's such a good idea, after all nothing to hide... You may as well. In short I am against the national ID card, it has been sold on fear all along, who we really should fear are those pushing it in whatever guise or tone. They are the ones 'threatening the British way of life'. Afterall is 'the British way of life' not one of freedom, including freedom from state interference? Why bother with Remembrance Sunday and the like if you are happy to erode the very foundation of the thing those soldiers fought and died for? You may as well spit on the cenotaph instead of laying wreaths.
With reference to this bit :
鈥 Seeks to convince the rest of us that ID cards will be a "stronger, safer, more convenient way" to protect our identity.
I cannot get past this thought : The best way of all to protect my identity is to NOT give my details to the government. In short, I cannot see how the creation of another record of my details is more secure than not creating one.
Interesting update regarding the so called Cameron rebellion. No mention is made that this was only regarding one clause (No 9) in the whole debate.
In addition, the Revolts.co.uk website also says that it was a free vote and only front bench tory mps were required to follow their leaders wish for an abstention. All did.
Therefore the 40 backbench MPs who did not abstain were free to do so.
I notice that only 3 tory mps voted with the goverment on the main issue - interestingly Bill Cash and the other eurosceptics would have done as the motion was to force a referendum.
As the site itself was quoted it would have been useful to get all the facts correct - I presume you will do a further update shortly Nick so that the public are not mislead further.
Examine the target groups & it correlates exactly with areas in which the Government has been embarrassed by security failures. So it seems the Government neatly blames its failings on not having ID cards & makes us wrong for not wanting them. Next they are billed as something that will "help" young people get bank accounts. Strange really, young people don't need help getting bank accounts. The banks are only too keen to sell their services.
The whole thing sounds to me as if it is billed as solving problems that don't really exist, but it comes with a warning that if we don't accept the Government's "solution", then problems will be created so that we welcome it. I seem to remember a similar situation in Germany in the 1930s, softening people up to accept the Government's final solution to a non-problem blamed on a particular identifiable racial group.
Just out of curiousity, are you saying that we currently don't run any identity checks on people who have access to airports?
I find that hard to believe.
So assuming the airlines/airports do some (hopefully fairly comprenhensive) checks on airport staff, having an ID card will achieve what exactly?
I am a foreign national and am utterly opposed to the ID cards. The Government "talks" about the benefit of the ID cards without actually proving any benefits at all. The only thing that is has proved recently is that it can not be trusted at all to secure our confidental data. And now it wants our biometrics as well! It am stunned beyound belief that they think they should be trusted with it.
They need to wake up and live in the real world. They need to understand IT and technology better and realise that anything can be hacked into. Once a frauderster has by biometrics, what protection will I have?
This is the final nail in the coffin of this Government. I am seriously considering fleeing before forced to hand other my biometric data to these incompetent people.
What worries me about id cards, is not the cards themselves, nor even the data base, but can I trust the government, any government not to misuse the data. Once the system is up and running it will be too late then to back out in the face of an authoritarian prime minister. I would like to see more discussion on the safe guards and protocols governing the use of the data and it's protection against unauthorised access. If the question is do I trust this government to look after my personal details and protect me against it's misuse - the answer is no
Don't you hate it when the kid behind the till holds your banknote up to the light to check if its a forgery? I sometimes ape this gesture with the notes I'm given as change. The point is - its just a gesture. Do they really know what to look for?
And with ID cards it will be the same. A quick glance at the thing, and you are assumed to be who you say you are. "Convenience" breeds complacency. Complacency leads to fraud.
ID cards will be forced upon us when businesses dealing with the public start to require them for even the most mundane transaction. Where human instinct or simple cross checks once worked, if your fingerprint matches that's enough.
"Well, we checked his ID card" will become the mantra for any organisation to avoid responsibility for a fraud that has affected you personally.
Is it any coincidence that SOCA (our FBI) was announced on the same day as Blunkett announced the national ID card? The ID card will herald a golden age for criminals!
Until I was issued with an Electoral Identity Card, a document peculiar to Northern Ireland, I was a non-person but one with a low carbon footprint!!. I have never driven and therefore do not have a driving licence. I don't travel outside the UK and have never had a passport. Nor am I so paranoid nor consider myself so important that the state will have a particular interest in me.
Being dead-set against ID cards for myself, it would by hypocritic if I approved them for non-eu immigrants or people working in airports.
The Government may have abandoned the brute force method, but is now into the dripping tap and will, inch by inch persuade, cajole or force acceptance of credit cards.
If the airport workers stand up to this (and bearing in mind the effect should they be dismissed en masse or go on strike they have the power) then we can kill this idea dead: stone dead.
if they don't then it will be that much easier to implement and that much harder to resist.
The government has proved itself incapable of handling large projects like these. It will be 10 years late, won't work and billions over budget. Why don't they learn from their mistakes!
Does anyone think that biometrics could be used in any other field other than for ID cards? Biometrics could be used for anytthing from identification systems to advertising or health care rather than just having ID cards. This is a technology that could be implemented into evryday life instead of being tied to idea of ID cards.
I heard the Home Secretary's interview this morning on the Today Programme and I didn't hear anything that convinces a sceptic like me that the cards are a good idea. The Home Secretary also said that having an ID Card would make it easier to open a bank account. I'm not convinced that having an ID card will really make it easier to open a bank account. Banks require proof of identity and proof of address and it is proving one's address that is usually the stumbling block when trying to open a new account either for a person has recently moved to the UK or someone who has moved within the UK.
I thought this daft idea was finally dead? Yet they keep resurrecting it time and time again.
I thought we now had adequate evidence to prove that "the powers that be" are totally unable to safeguard our private, personal data. So rather than safeguarding us against ID theft, the central identity database will be a "one stop shop" for anyone wishing to pull off any kind of ID related misdeeds.
It definitely IS "the database, stupid". I have no objection to carrying an ID card, as it would be very useful, but I have very strong reasons why I don't want all of my ID-related details stored on a central ID database. So the idea really is poorly conceived, dangerously flawed and likely to cost many billions of pounds more than anyone is prepared to admit.
Why can't they just see sense and bury it once and for all? Oh, I forgot, they're politicians.
The weakest links in any security system are always the people involved to implement and maintain it. It doesn't matter how secure something is, as long as a person has control over it, it is always open to corruption. This has been proven time and time again, no matter how sophisticated the hardware.
As soon as someone figures out how to replace your biometric details with their own under your name, the system becomes useless.
Even worse; because the system is perceived to be infallible, initial claimants of identity theft will suffer hugely as their claims are scoffed at.
This has already happened with the Chip and Pin scheme. Banks are only now admitting that the system is flawed, even though it has been demonstrated repeatedly that machines and cards can be tampered with.
A similar issue presents itself with the possible introduction of a compulsory DNA database. What police and prosecutors need to remember is that as soon as there is a high profile miscarriage of justice due to a mistake being made or fraud occurring, then confidence will be lost in the system and it would be much harder to achieve a conviction by DNA evidence.
do british spies have to have these biometric id cards, wont that comprimise their job?,if these kind of people can have miltiple identities whats to stop organised criminals from copying fake id's cards for criminal purposes?
do british spies have to have these biometric id cards, wont that comprimise their job?,if these kind of people can have miltiple identities whats to stop organised criminals from copying fake id's cards for criminal purposes?
Doesn't the government know when it's beaten?
The NHS IT platform is a complete disaster of lost and insecure data making patients' and GPs' lives a misery. Go and visit a hospital near you if you don't believe that staff are utterly demoralised by this interfering government. Standards of clinical excellence do not depend on an IT platform they depend on properly qualified, motivated and compensated staff.
The money wasted on the IT platform is just that; wasted when it could have been directed to better causes within the NHS.
Those arguing for the 'benefits' of ID cards seem incapable of putting into simple language why exactly we need this costly intrusion. Where's the cost benefit analysis? Time for another review, Gordon.
do british spies have to have these biometric id cards, wont that comprimise their job?,if these kind of people can have miltiple identities whats to stop organised criminals from copying fake id's cards for criminal purposes?
I am a foreign national who has been resident in the UK for twenty five years, like most people in my position paying taxes and national insurance contributions all that time, and contributing to British society. Like most British people I am against the introduction of ID card, and object to being singled out in this way.
Leaving Britain and going home is not an option as my children are British, don't know my country of origin, and our family life is here.
Nick,
Your update seems a bit of a damp squib, an update on revolt says it was a free vote for the backbenchers. It seems the front bench abstained from voting...
I wonder if by assisting students does that mean making harder for students without cards?
I seem to remeber that i managed just fine when i was a student and i didn't have a id card?
Doesn't the government know when it's beaten?
The NHS IT platform is a complete disaster of lost and insecure data making patients' and GPs' lives a misery. Go and visit a hospital near you if you don't believe that staff are utterly demoralised by this interfering government. Standards of clinical excellence do not depend on an IT platform they depend on properly qualified, motivated and compensated staff.
The money wasted on the IT platform is just that; wasted when it could have been directed to better causes within the NHS.
Those arguing for the 'benefits' of ID cards seem incapable of putting into simple language why exactly we need this costly intrusion. Where's the cost benefit analysis? Time for another review, Gordon.
Will banks suddenly stop requiring proof of address from people trying to open bank accounts? Proof of address, rather than proof of ID, is usually the stumbling block for someone opening a new bank account in the UK.
Nick, excellent summary, but why don't your colleagues on Today ever seem to put the same kinds of points to the minister? For example, that one about students and whether this scheme to "give" them the ID card first is really coercion. Can't you do a stint as Today's political interviewer and leave the other stuff (poetry, proms, etc) to Jim, Ed and Sarah? It would be nice one day to have someone in the hot seat who can give the minsters what for. Patently, Jim, Ed, et al don't have the resources to do so.
Two brief points, Nick.
First, the government have not got a good track record on data protection and transfer.
Second, the creation of compulsory identity cards will create a new crime because by their very nature the cards will become a new currency to be stolen and abused thus imperilling those who carry them.
I do not need another National Identity Card: I still have the one which was issued to me in 1940.
Just another way of bringing ID cards through the back door, spinning it so it looks good on the surface, once they have conned us into having them they will change the law to conpulsery, you wait and see.
what cameron rebellion? anyway it was a free vote, it looks like nicks got his bias streak again, why not aim your finger at the goverment they have sold this country to europe, all very childish...
Heard ms Smith saying database will not be online so security will be 100%. On Radio4.
So no ability to check false ID cards?
Sorry.. I can't believe this She's totally ignorant of what she is saying. Spend 拢10Billion on ID cards and NOT check them on line?
Why bother.
The point which I make at every opportunity, Nick, is that comparisons with other countries (e.g.: 'They've got them in Italy, so there..')are total bunkum. Our government, just for STARTERS, wants to put 57 items of information on these ID cards - and how long (the MOT started as brakes, lights, steering) before its 100..? 200..?
All in the name of 'fighting terrorism', of course...
This daft ID card scheme is yet another case of hubris from the Labour establishment.
The government knows it's daft, unpopular, flawed, dangerous and costly; but dropping it would mean admitting they got it wrong.
Own up to getting it wrong? Not very likely with this lot, is it?
So essentially this now boils down to being unable to convince the electorate of the benefits of ID cards (how blind of us!) so the intention is to start making life as difficult as possible if you do not use them!
The quintessential solution seeking a problem...
Biometric based ID cards are required by the EU. Stay in the EU and we won't have any choice but to be numbered, filed and monitored.
The I.D card scheme is nearly dead in the water. The personal information losses by the government, coupled with the spiraling costs have given the tories a massive open goal to aim for, and they have been plugging away.
Nick, the party had no whip over the issue apart from the front bench, who followed orders. Therefore its not a rebellion, just some people wanting it to be. Please put that in there, rather than making youself look stupid.
Is there a petition I can sign, like the one for road charging. Must go and have a look.
I'd like to think El Gordo would realise this whole thing is a vote loser. However, the professed desire for a 'government of all the talents' (one party state) and the stated aim to 'draw the military and general public closer together' (soften the public up for having armed soldiers on the streets) suggests votes are not seen as relevant in the grand scheme of things.
Why are so many people against ID card, fingerprint and DNA data bases? I wonder how much time would be saved by the police and security forces in crime prevention and detection.
Most of the information on the ID cards is held on government computers e.g. we all have national insurance numbers. Most people now have passports, driving licences, pay tax. All these government departments have various information held on computers i.e. name, address, employer, savings, salaries, number of dependants. We all so fill in the national senses and give this information and more.
What is there to hide? Nothing so I say bring on a national ID, Fingerprint and DNA data bases. The sooner the better.
I don't understand the principles involved here for foreign nationals, and how it will help national security.
Will the foreign nationals already have an ID card from their home country which the UK will be bound to accept? I can't see that will help security if we are forced to accept a foreign-issued ID card.
If the application is made for an ID card on the person's arrival at the UK, who will verify the information on the application ? Who will verify the verifier ?
Just two questions that come to mind immediately. Can anyone help ?
I will agree do having an ID card IF, everyone in the UK is on the same database.
Why should MPs and Jade Goody have their data held more securley than mine?
It is interesting that "Auntie Jacqui" has included airport workers as users of the ID scheme.
Airport workers already have ID schemes however they are airport specific. That works fine for ground workers who go in and out of one airport however flight crew often exit through security at one airport then enter through another. This fouls up the system as next time you go through outbound security it shows up that the individual is still airside. Aircraft engineers also have to go to different airports with different security systems to maintain aircraft.
What the ID scheme will do is provide a UK wide security pass for all airports and allow crew to be tracked out and into the different airports, however in doing so the airports will be collecting and storing data, something that we were assured will not happen.
Of course they (who must be obeyed)could get round this undertaking by producing a parallel security card that pretends that it isn't the national ID.
The pigs are taking over the farm.
"What has the law abiding citizen got to lose by having an ID card?"
Freedom - you must register with the government to be allowed to exist.
Security - Smith thinks it's un-hackable because it won't be "connected to the internet". She is wrong as any computer security professional will tell you.
Privacy - the government will have a record of every ID check made. So that's every time you visit a doctor or if you want to open a bank account.
A shedload of money - self-explanatory.
15 billion quid to save us the incovenience of taking a utility bill into the bank once every five years. Bargain!
I wuould agree to an ID card if...
A guarantee was given that the cards WOULD NOT contain a TRACKING CHIP like the one in my friends dog, and EVERYONE would BY LAW carry their card all of the time.
I stress EVERYONE EVERYONE EVERYONE.
If its not compulsory for ALL people whats the point in having one?
Just a point, but even the most expensive fingerprint scanners can be fooled by a fake gelatine fingerprint. Which can be made at home with easily accessable materials, and a 10 minute internet search.
First they targeted the foreigners, but I was not foreign, and said nothing Then they targeted the airport workers, but I was not an airport worker, and said nothing Then they targeted the students, but I was not an student, and said nothing Then they targeted me, but there was no-one left to say anything
"I seem to remeber that i managed just fine when i was a student and i didn't have a id card?"
Same here - I only needed one for exams and that was issued by the university and only had my name, department and student number on it.