State your name, rank and intention...So, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced that from autumn, the Government would push ahead with its controvertial introduction of ID cards starting with a pilot scheme in Manchester, with a view to introducing it as a compulsory means of registering and control of the population. I've made no secret of my distaste for the idea when discussing the issue, but I've presented five reasons supporting and opposing the scheme. The debate is open to all, especially those of you who aren't British, so do comment!
Pros
2) Simple - All one would have to do is sign up at the local post office or police station and apply for their card.
3) Safe - The card would have biometric data stored on it: fingerprints and retina details would be digitally stored in order to acertain the identity of the card-holder.
4) Practical - Being one's primary proof of identification would also lessen the need to carry a passport or driving license.
5) In Keeping With EU Norms - Many other countries, including Spain, have compulsory ID card schemes.
Cons
1) (Further) Stripping of Civil Liberties - Who will be granted access to all of this information? The UK currently has the highest CCTV camera-to-citizen ratio in the EU; with ID cards being added, are we becoming a society which lives under an all-seeing eye?
2) Expensive - As simple as the application process is, one will still have to pay for the priviledge of having the card. Beyond the personal cost, the introduction of the scheme and the supporting technology could set the Government back billions of pounds, money which could be saved, right now.
3) Potentially Xenophobic/Racist - You can only get a card if you are a UK citizen, and have a British Passport. In what way may this be abused as a means of excluding those of us who are long-term residents, but not (yet) citizens in everyday environment? Will we become suspect?
4) Safe, but Secure? - The UK Government, regardless of political party, are notoriously inefficient. The current Government, which is aggressively pushing ahead with this initiative, has lost large amounts of personal data three times in the last eight years.
5) Not Compulsory Everywhere - Most people over 16 have a passport, or driving license and are able to prove their identity if necessary. In Spain, a passport with relevant travel documentation is sufficient. Although I technically needed a Student Card, I've survived seven months without one, living in a bureaucratic grey area.
Of course, as I said, I'm firmly against the idea for the above reasons, and several more, but several people are in support of the idea. Not as many as the Government would have you believe, though. According to the latest Government questionnaire, 59% were "strongly or partly in favour" of the scheme...
Anyway. I've spoken my piece. What about you?
Eh... the US wants to do this, too, and Pennsylvania (my state), and a handful of other states, are refusing. ha!
ReplyDeleteI'm on the fence on this issue. Driver's license can be equipped with biometric data just as well, why have another card to worry about?
if you are a UK citizen, and have a British Passport...But not every citizen has a passport. Lord knows the US citizens don't. That means all of sudden, there will be an influx of passport application, and the government will cry to high heavens that "your passport application will take 12 months to process due to high volume". It's B.S.! And besides, passports are amazingly easy to duplicate regardless of high-security features, and the resulting product is just as legit. You did not hear it from me. :)
And I do worry about the mountains of data that they're planning to mine. Granted, biometrics is inherently difficult to reproduce, but given the advances in computer science and cheap hardware, it's a matter of time, sooner than you'd think. Encryption keys are nearly useless these days unless you have a fairly long one (4,096 bits or more). Training people to use encryption is like forcing a kid to eat broccoli. And from recent security breaches that I know of, it's usually the people high-up - the ones with greater access to systems - that tend to slack off and therefore a liability in itself. Gov't agencies can't even keep SSN secured, and that's just a string of 9 digits. Now they want another piece of information that's even *more* personal?
To what extent do they want to utilize this? For boarding airplanes? For random checks on the streets? When you want to withdraw money from the bank? I don't like the idea that they can *possibly* *abuse* this as a citizen vs. non-citizen checking tool, seeing that only citizens can get it. One's inability to produce the card when needed/asked would create the assumption that, a) you're not citizen, or b) you're an illegal. And it'll go downhill from there.
For instance, right now, if you drive around without a driver's license and get stopped, you get a ticket and a monetary fine (in the US, not sure how it works in the UK). What if you forgot to bring this ID card? Do you get hauled off to the immigration center? Would it turn cops (and other people) into pseudo immigration agents?
Not enough time or energy to fully reply, but well said. These are my main issues with the scheme.
ReplyDelete"Would it turn cops (and other people) into pseudo immigration agents?"
You'd need it for everything, eventually, even for non-official things. Employers, shopkeepers, waiters and hotel managers refusing service, because they are suspicious of your intentions, just because you left your card at home, that day...
All of the cons you've mentioned outweigh any supposed validity the pros carry.
ReplyDeleteDespite being pro-CCTV et cetera, I'm firmly opposed to this intrusive, monstrous concept, on too many levels.