by Rossco » Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Just my two cents worth - Bush created politcal capital from the 'War on Terrror' and I believe that the ID Card debacle in the UK is exactly the same.
Fear is being used to political gain. The force with which both ID Cards and the raft of anti-terror laws are being pushed implies to the general populace that there is a huge threat from terrorism and in the absence of any kind of indication to the contrary the tendency is to trust and believe this. Therefore, when it comes to the next general election labour gets votes because of its ‘success’ in its fight against an unquantifiable war on terror. ID Cards will be a resounding success: they’ll win votes. Above winning votes, I’m not sure they’ll do anything at all.
Benefit fraud: The vast majority of fraud (certainly in Glasgow – The Herald last week I think) occurs where claims are made for benefits for which people are not eligible. Incapacity benefit is a prime example. An ID Card would not stop or even hinder this. The reason the government has used Benefit Fraud as one of the main tenets of their argument is that it is highly visible. High visibility is not the same as high value with Fuel Duty and VAT Fraud amounting to three times that lost to Benefit Fraud.
Terrorism: The London Bombers were in the country legitimately. The 9/11 bombers were in the US legitimately. Terrorism is covert and by its very nature an ID Card would have had no effect since, in both the above terrorist acts, there was no question of identity of the perpetrators. Terrorists are increasingly homegrown zealots whose identity is a matter of pride especially where those acts are as a result of some kind of religious extremism and the July 7th bombers carried credit cards with them to actually prove their identities after they had carried out the bombings.
ID Theft: Opening bank accounts, taking out loans, purchasing contract phones and taking other forms of credit are all nightmare abuses of a stolen identity but yet ID Cards will have a limited effect. For starters, the ID Card Scheme will allow limited client access so your local Phones4U is unlikely ever to be able to verify your biometrics and, therefore, your identity. Your bank is unlikely to biometrically identify every customer for every transaction since this wouldn’t be viable for practical reasons and I doubt the biometric register itself would be able to deal with the massive quantities of data such a usage would generate. The ultimate form of ID Theft is more likely to occur at the point of registration for the system – I mean, how will your ID be verified when you go to have your biometrics taken? It will be fundamentally flawed because it will rely upon the forms of ID we use now to verify our identities – the infinitely forgeable passport, driving license or utility bills. Let’s hope an identity thief doesn’t register your ID as their own before you do!!
Crime: Having every face, fingerprint and retinal scan in the land available in a database will undoubtedly aid in the identification of criminals who have left fingerprints at crime scenes and according the police website there are 200,000 unidentified scene of crime marks (and an even larger selection of CCTV images which could be compared against the register). Clearly, a large number of these will be resolved and result in arrests yet, notions of justice aside, will we end up criminalising a huge number of citizens who have otherwise gone on to lead valuable and crime free lives? I’m thinking specifically of those who have done stupid things as teenagers – we all see the types who hang around street corners getting drunk on Buckfast and I can see how easily it would be for them to be caught up in crime because of social exclusion, boredom and poverty yet I feel that simply because I, through an accident of birth, was born to a well off family that the playing field should be any less level. The national register will tilt that playing field creating a social and criminal underclass with no escape. For those who are victims of crime, I also feel that it is entirely your right not to be identified as being a victim. Certainly, where gang related crime occurs, witnesses may not want to come forward and for good reason. Where witnesses identities have been captured through fingerprints left at the scene or CCTV footage (and subsequently facial biometrics) witness will have little choice. Some may say it’s social duty to come forward and others may argue in favour of their knee caps.
Abuse: The database will have security flaws. Every single computer system does – there is simply no system that is 100% secure. When those flaws are exploited, the system will have to be abandoned as the biometrics register will no longer be able to be trusted.
Facial recognition technologies may also be abused. How much information about what we do, do we want to the government to have. It is perfectly viable to have city centre CCTV linked to a facial recognition system (Edinburgh has such a system to track known criminals deemed a threat after release) but if this information is databased how long will it be before other agencies draw on that. I don’t imagine it is too much of a leap to see doctors having to make decisions about, in a limited resource environment such as the NHS, who to treat and basing decisions on information other than chances of success and quality of life measures. The use, and abuse, of such information is limitless. Combine this with plans to implement a system of RFID tagging every single number plate in the country that tracks vehicles down to the nearest road sign or junction (a trial of this technology is already under way with the police force) and you have some pretty powerful and frightening technology.
Access to health care will be dependant on the production of a valid ID Card. Fine, you may think, but I would certainly rather foot the bill for treating illegal immigrants than there be a pandemic of TB and other infectious diseases which will ultimately result in deaths and costing the health service more money.
For those that say “I’ve nothing to hide”, you may well have something to hide in the future. History has taught us that governments are just people who are as prone to making mistakes as you or I and with the responsibility of government and pressure of securing a next term, can we really trust government at all?
