The Brits ID card crisis
 

ID cards defend the ultimate civil liberty

CHARLES CLARKE

From preventing benefit fraud to winning the War on Terror, why I am
supporting today¹s Bill

I HAVE long been a strong supporter of the benefits of identity cards. I
became convinced of the advantages as a weapon in fighting crime when I was
Police Minister from 1999 to 2001. I backed David Blunkett¹s proposals when
we discussed them in Cabinet and as Education Secretary I told the Home
Affairs Select Committee last April of my personal support for the
principle.

That is why I will today propose that the House of Commons gives a second
reading to the Identity Cards Bill. I have been urged by opponents of this
measure ‹ such as Charles Kennedy and the Liberal Democrats ‹ to ³pause for
thought² in the entirely forlorn hope that I will abandon the whole idea.

However, I believe that ‹ quite apart from the security advantages ‹ there
will be enormous practical benefits. ID cards will potentially make a
difference to any area of everyday life where you already have to prove your
identity ‹ such as opening a bank account, going abroad on holiday, claiming
a benefit, buying goods on credit and renting a video. The possession of a
clear, unequivocal and unique form of identity ‹ in the shape of a card
linked to a database holding biometrics ‹ will offer significant benefits.

Moreover, their help in tackling fraud will save tens of millions of pounds
of taxpayers¹ money. Some £50 million a year is claimed illegally from the
benefits systems using false identities. This money can be far better spent
improving schools and hospitals and fighting crime and antisocial behaviour.

This drive towards secure identity is, of course, happening all over the
world. Under current plans, for example, from next autumn British tourists
who need a new passport will have to get a biometric one to visit the US or
get a biometric visa. We will ‹ rightly ‹ have to bear the costs of
introducing the new technology to enhance our passports anyway. We should
take the opportunity of that investment to secure wider benefits such as
those I set out here.

Of course, the Bill may be amended at the various stages of parliamentary
discussion, and I will look carefully at all constructive suggestions to
improve our proposals. But I have to say that my commitment to the principle
of ID cards is very strong and will not waver, mainly because I think that
they will help to make everyone a bit safer, at no real cost to civil
liberties.

For example, a secure identity system will help to prevent terrorist
activity, more than a third of which makes use of false identities. It will
make it far easier to address the vile trafficking in vulnerable human
beings that ends in the tragedies of Morecambe Bay, exploitative near-slave
labour or vile forced prostitution. It will reduce identity fraud, which now
costs the UK more than £1.3 billion every year.

I believe that some critics of our proposals are guilty of liberal woolly
thinking and spreading false fears when they wrongly claim that ID cards
will erode our civil liberties, will revisit 1984 , usher in the ³Big
Brother² society, or establish some kind of totalitarian police state. Those
kinds of nightmare will be no more true of ID cards, when they are
introduced, than they have been for the spread of cash and credit cards,
driving licences, passports, work security passes and any number of the
other current forms of ID that most of us now carry.

In order to reinforce this point, the Bill does not make it compulsory to
carry a card, nor does it give powers to the police to stop individuals and
demand to see their card. Neither will the database which accompanies the
card hold information such as medical records, religion or political
beliefs.

Of course, ID cards cannot solve every problem. But ‹ properly and carefully
introduced, as they will be ‹ they can be part of the solution. There is no
contradiction between the introduction of ID cards and the wide range of
other measures with which the Government seeks to fight crime.

I claim that the ID Cards Bill that I am introducing today is a profoundly
civil libertarian measure because it promotes the most fundamental civil
liberty in our society, which is the right to live free from crime and fear.
Both in practice and in principle ID cards are right. I hope that they will
gain wide support throughout our society, and the sooner the better.

Charles Clarke is Home Secretary

Re: The Brits ID card crisis
 

I really don't know what the fuss is about. If you've got nothing to hide
then who cares about carrying an ID card. It's not just some sort of "Big
Brother" measure. It can actually be useful if you're in an accident or
something.

And if it can be used for moving around Europe without the need for a
passport then all the better. It seems to me crazy (Brit living in NL) that
I need a passport to move in and out of the UK. The UK attitude to Europe is
summed up by the fact that the UK advertises "flights TO Europe" ! You're in
it geographically in case you hadn't noticed. Island mentality!

From 1 January 2005 the Dutch government will fine people who are asked for
identification and can't produce it. The UK govt is a soft touch in that
it's not even absolutely necessary to carry ID. The benefits far outweigh
the disadvantages.

Re: The Brits ID card crisis
 

"Stu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    >I really don't know what the fuss is about. If you've got nothing to hide
    > then who cares about carrying an ID card.

This is rather typical fascist boilerplate, isn't it?
It's a popular, if vaccuous and totalitarian, sentiment.

    > And if it can be used for moving around Europe without the need for a
    > passport then all the better. It seems to me crazy (Brit living in NL)
    > that
    > I need a passport to move in and out of the UK. The UK attitude to Europe
    > is
    > summed up by the fact that the UK advertises "flights TO Europe" ! You're
    > in
    > it geographically in case you hadn't noticed. Island mentality!

Could it be because it's an island nation? Just maybe?

"May I see your papers please? ... YOUR PAPERS!!!"
Yes, it has a familar ring to it!

    > From 1 January 2005 the Dutch government will fine people who are asked
    > for
    > identification and can't produce it. The UK govt is a soft touch in that
    > it's not even absolutely necessary to carry ID. The benefits far outweigh
    > the disadvantages.
    >

Re: The Brits ID card crisis
 

"Stu" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >I really don't know what the fuss is about. If you've got nothing to hide
    >then who cares about carrying an ID card. ...
Ironic that this argument is made by a poster who does not reveal his
identity.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

Re: The Brits ID card crisis
 

"No Spam" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"Stu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >>I really don't know what the fuss is about. If you've got nothing to hide
    >> then who cares about carrying an ID card.
    >This is rather typical fascist boilerplate, isn't it?
    >It's a popular, if vaccuous and totalitarian, sentiment.
How is it vacuous and, more particularly, how is it totalitarian?

    >"May I see your papers please? ... YOUR PAPERS!!!"
    >Yes, it has a familar ring to it!
Does it? Or are you just making a vacuous case by creating a false
image and then using it to support an emotional appeal?

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

Re: The Brits ID card crisis
 

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:54:28 +0000, Padraig Breathnach
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >>"May I see your papers please? ... YOUR PAPERS!!!"
    >>Yes, it has a familar ring to it!
    >Does it? Or are you just making a vacuous case by creating a false
    >image and then using it to support an emotional appeal?

I've had the experience of policeman demanding ID, even though they
had no reason to demand me identify themselves (obviously they
probably could've come up with appropriate grounds, it's pretty easy,
but they didn't go through the appropriate steps beforehand) It's
certainly images of the UK police force I can empathise with.

I also know personally policemen currently awaiting trial on supplying
PNC data to 3rd parties (some of the people who recieved PNC data
allegedly from them have already been convicted)

Also of course, I've regularly got drunk with a great number of
policemen, and certainly conisder lots of them friends, there's good
and bad folk everywhere.

Whilst I agree the imagery was perhaps intentionally emotional, it's
not so extreme as to be unrecognisable in the UK.

Jim.

Re: The Brits ID card crisis
 

Stu <[email protected]> wrote:

    > I really don't know what the fuss is about. If you've got nothing to hide
    > then who cares about carrying an ID card. It's not just some sort of "Big
    > Brother" measure. It can actually be useful if you're in an accident or
    > something.

I agree with the use of them, and there are many instances nowadays
where _some_ form of ID is required (taking flights, making hotel
bookings, etc.)- I think most people would support a voluntary system of
ID card. I'd certainly prefer a credit card form of ID over carrying
round my passport. The problem is that people in the UK, quite rightly,
don't trust their government to, at some point, make the ID cards
mandatory, and intrusive.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Re: The Brits ID card crisis
 

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:51:32 +0000, Padraig Breathnach
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >"Stu" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>I really don't know what the fuss is about. If you've got nothing to hide
    >>then who cares about carrying an ID card. ...
    >Ironic that this argument is made by a poster who does not reveal his
    >identity.

Are suggesting that when ID cards are issued in UK every recipient
will get 100 tins of Spam pushed through their letter box every day?
--
Martin

Re: The Brits ID card crisis
 

nitram <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:51:32 +0000, Padraig Breathnach
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >"Stu" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >>I really don't know what the fuss is about. If you've got nothing to hide
    > >>then who cares about carrying an ID card. ...
    > >>
    > >Ironic that this argument is made by a poster who does not reveal his
    > >identity.
    >
    > Are suggesting that when ID cards are issued in UK every recipient
    > will get 100 tins of Spam pushed through their letter box every day?

Huh? My address above is a perfectly legitimate one. I just don't check
it very much. As my .sig shows, it's perfectly possible to deflect junk
mail and make your identity known. To be clear, I'm not saying that one
_has_ to reveal their identity on USENET- that's their choice. However,
"Stu" conceals his, and that's what Padraig was pointing out. It is at
least a little ironic, given Stu's post.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Re: The Brits ID card crisis
 

In article <[email protected]>, Stu <[email protected]> wrote:

    > From 1 January 2005 the Dutch government will fine people who are asked for
    > identification and can't produce it. The UK govt is a soft touch in that
    > it's not even absolutely necessary to carry ID. The benefits far outweigh
    > the disadvantages.

On demand "Your papers please" while walking down the street is giving
up huge personnel freedom. Can they collect this data ?

I'm in favor of an optional National ID card, to be used with a very
limited scope by the government (air travel, boarders) but with the
private sector free to use the card at their discretion and with
greater reliability.

jay
Mon Dec 20, 2004
mailto:[email protected]

Re: The Brits ID card crisis
 

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 22:34:13 +0000, chancellor of the duchy of besses o'
th' barn wrote:

    > Stu <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> I really don't know what the fuss is about. If you've got nothing to hide
    >> then who cares about carrying an ID card. It's not just some sort of "Big
    >> Brother" measure. It can actually be useful if you're in an accident or
    >> something.
    >
    > I agree with the use of them, and there are many instances nowadays
    > where _some_ form of ID is required (taking flights, making hotel
    > bookings, etc.)- I think most people would support a voluntary system of
    > ID card. I'd certainly prefer a credit card form of ID over carrying
    > round my passport. The problem is that people in the UK, quite rightly,
    > don't trust their government to, at some point, make the ID cards
    > mandatory, and intrusive.

It's funny, I think that in many parts of the EU identity cards are
commonplace, yet the populations baulk at the idea of video cameras in
public places, yet in the UK it's the other way round. Videos all over the
place actively watching your every move, yet they can't accept a passive ID
card.

--
Tim C.

Re: The Brits ID card crisis
 

"Go Fig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:201220041925160105%[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>, Stu <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> From 1 January 2005 the Dutch government will fine people who are asked
    >> for
    >> identification and can't produce it. The UK govt is a soft touch in that
    >> it's not even absolutely necessary to carry ID. The benefits far outweigh
    >> the disadvantages.
    > On demand "Your papers please" while walking down the street is giving
    > up huge personnel freedom.

Most other European countries have that power already. Some of them also
have Police in whom I have much less confidence than I have in ours. How
often have you been stopped at random and been asked for your passport in
one of those countries?

Colin Bignell

Re: The Brits ID card crisis
 

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 19:25:16 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>, Stu <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> From 1 January 2005 the Dutch government will fine people who are asked for
    >> identification and can't produce it. The UK govt is a soft touch in that
    >> it's not even absolutely necessary to carry ID. The benefits far outweigh
    >> the disadvantages.
    >On demand "Your papers please" while walking down the street is giving
    >up huge personnel freedom. Can they collect this data ?

Yes, currently they must collect this data, if the policeman asks you
to produce ID, it would have to be for something they made a record of
(a stop and search, or a crime) currently, you can have stop and
searches and refuse to give your name, if they find nothing the record
is as an anonymous person.

Of course it may be different in any ID card enabling bill, but
collecting the data wouldn't be a problem - I imagine they'd actually
just record the scanning in their PDA computers.

    >I'm in favor of an optional National ID card, to be used with a very
    >limited scope by the government (air travel, boarders) but with the
    >private sector free to use the card at their discretion and with
    >greater reliability.

Sounds like a passport and driving licence to me?

Jim.

Re: The Brits ID card crisis
 

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 19:25:16 -0800, Go Fig wrote:

    > On demand "Your papers please" while walking down the street is giving
    > up huge personnel freedom. Can they collect this data ?

Giving up about as much as a US cop asking to see your driving licence.
The ID cards of Germany and Austria doesn't have much more on it than a
name, photo, number and date of birth.
In 19 years in Germany and Austria I've never been asked for ID on the
street or in a bar.

--
Tim C.

Re: The Brits ID card crisis
 

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:25:31 +0100, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >It's funny, I think that in many parts of the EU identity cards are
    >commonplace, yet the populations baulk at the idea of video cameras in
    >public places, yet in the UK it's the other way round. Videos all over the
    >place actively watching your every move, yet they can't accept a passive ID
    >card.

They're different sort of things to my mind.

The ID card allows immediate interference by the police etc. and
criminalises the forgetful, whereas the video camera is only any use
as a retroactive what happened.

Jim.