Beware of card tricks
Henry Porter / Harry Potter the G2 11.07.06
You have no right to take my photograph without my consent. And you most certainly don’t have it.
What bothers me is when someone puts my image, my name, the place and time together. That is information of a personal nature, and is an invasion of my privacy.
National Identity Register (NIR)
I have no objection to identifying myself when it is my choice. I don’t mind taking my passport along to the bank or showing my driving licence to collect a parcel from the post office but I am preternaturally against the state forcing me to supply biometric measurements and 49 separate pieces of information about myself to a database
I am genetically incapable of submitting to such a process.
The government is selling the ID card scheme to the public on a false prospectus. The government began by saying it would prevent terrorism. When that wasn’t tenable, it said it would prevent ID theft. When that didn’t work, it said it would prevent benefit fraud and when that didn’t work it resorted to claiming that it would help control illegal immigration.
The Spanish ID card did not stop the
Madrid train bombers and a British ID card wouldn’t have stopped the
London July bombings of 2005. ID cards will not deter home-grown terrorists or suicide bombers. Martyrdom is pointless when it is anonymous.
Ministers stirred up fears about ID theft as the great scourge of modern society. It is a problem but nowhere near as large as the government has been making out. In January 2006 when the Home Office published a report which said that ID theft cost the public 1.7b, this figure was exaggerated by almost 50% because it included 396m for money laundering and 504m for total lost of plastic cards.
Rather than stopping ID theft, ID cards are likely to increase the problem, because this single unified and trusted identifier will be something really worth forging.
In Feb 2004, the government published a report saying that a campaign against benefit fraud had cut losses by 400m. the report said the government was on target to slash fraud and error by half by this year. Then the boasting suddenly stopped. Because the government’s success at meeting its own targets militated against the argument for ID cards.
Like crime, benefit fraud has decreased. But it suits the government to keep us in a state of near frenzy about both.
Anyway, benefit fraud is generally people exaggerating their sickness and the extent of their disability rather than organised individuals using multiple identities. The ID card will do nothing to stop someone faking depression or lower back pain.
Finally, the ID card won’t stop illegal immigrants. It will make their lives more difficult but it won’t deter people smugglers and desperate migrants.
Dragoon – coerce
And of course, the ID card scheme will not remain voluntary. This is like saying
The system only works if everyone is forced to carry a card and submit their details to the NIR. Already, 55m has been granted in contracts to set up 69 enrolment centres across the country. The bill includes provision for a system of heavy fines for non-compliance. The government intends to enforce its will.
If you don’t give the authorities 49 pieces of information about yourself. If you don’t, you may be fined up to 2,500
If you fail to inform the police or the Home Office when you lose your card, or it if becomes defective, you face a fine of up to £1,000.
If you find someone else’s card and do not immediately hand it in, you may be imprisoned for up to 2 years, or pay a fine, or both.
And you will be fined £1,000 if you fail to inform the NIR of any change of address.
If you don’t inform the register of significant changes to your personal life, or any errors they have made, you will face a fine of up to £1,000.
And you will have to pay for this, between £30 and £93 to be registered, with further charges to change your details and to replace a lost or stolen card. The government is charging you so that it can charge companies that wish to confirm your identity
Badge of citizenship embodying the idea of a contract between citizen and state bollocks
Terrible potential for intrusion and control. The idea of a contract is ridiculous when one party is being forced to sign or face penalties. You are too impressed by authority and too weak to oppose it.
When reading the ID card bill I am constantly struck by its minatory (threatening) tone – the threats of fines and the general contempt for the average citizen
Every time you,
Get a library card
Make a credit agreement
Buy a piece of property
Apply for a fishing or gun licence
Withdraw a small amount of money from your bank
Take a prescription to your chemist
Apply for a resident’s parking permit
Buy a plane ticket
Pay for your car to be unclamped
You will be required to swipe your card and the database will record the transaction.
From the moment the database goes lives, we will become subjects not citizens and each one of us will be diminished in relation to the state’s power.
Something enormous and revolutionary is about to happen to us. We are giving the most precious part of ourselves to the government, allowing it complete freedom to roam through our privacy.
And it’s not just to this government, but to the governments of the future, the nature of which we cannot possibly know.
And it’s not just our privacy, it’s the rights and privacy of future generations. We have a duty to those people.
The prime minister asks us to trust him and implies that abuse of a database would be unthinkable in
Britain. But after the lies before the invasion of
Iraq, the revelations of the Hutton inquiry and the evidence about rendition flights using British airspace, I would suggest that we treat these sorts of assurances and appeals with the utmost suspicion.
Nor do I trust the government’s competence. The past decade is littered with failed government IT project, the child support agency, the immigration records, the working tax credit database, the farmer’s single payment scheme
The NIR will have thousands of entry points where the information on your file can be assessed.
A few weeks ago, the Criminal Records Office wrongly identified 2,700 people as having criminal records; people’s reputations were damaged, many were turned down for jobs as a result and could argue for a serious loss of earnings.
But the Home Office didn’t even apologise. It is exactly the arrogance that I fear will come to charaterise all government dealings with the person in the street once this database is operational
I am politically opposed because as the government database grows, I believe there will be a commensurate lessening in the state’s respect for each one of us. The government will gradually become less accountable and less responsive to the needs of the people
Philosophically, in a free country, I believe that every human being has the right to define him or herself independently and without reference to the government of the time. This is particularly important in a multi-cultural soc like ours
It will remove the right of those who for whatever reason wish to withdraw from society, to enjoy solitude and privacy without inspection from a centralised authority.
Privacy, anonymity and solitude are rights, and we are about to lose them forever.
The register will take on a life of its own. Once you set up a system like this it becomes ineluctably compelled to find out more and more about your. That will be its hardwired purpose.