Why we must now fight ID cards

[detective-boy]

If that identity becomes the trusted method of identifying yourself there will be massive resources being put to break the system.

I'm sorry. I don't follow your line of reasoning at all.

Your identity IS the ONLY way of identifying yourself - we are talking about making it more difficult to steal it. I think that anything that makes that more difficlt is a good thing. You think our current system, where "Tonight, Matthew, I am going to be ... BigPhil" is as simple as clicking your fingers is fine. We are not going to agree.

 

[detective-boy]

By definition it cannot be updated.

You are missing the point entirely ... no-one else has it and there will be someone carrying out the test each time so if they're using a severed finger * (* or similar ridiculous example of how easy it would be to evade the system here) the operator would notice ....

 

[detective-boy]

Now explain how an ID card is safer and more effective than the frequently existing requirement of two pieces of ID.

BY. USING. BIOMETRICS. WHICH. CAN. BE. CHECKED. THERE. AND. THEN. AGAINST. THE. BIOMETRICS. DATA. ON. THE. ID. CARD. OR. IN. THE. ID. DATABASE.

Now tell me how the fuck you know that the passport you are shown belongs to the person showing it? Or isn't a forgery (particularly if it's not a UK one)? Or how you know that Utility Bill is genuine?

And tell me if a passport is so fucking reliable, how an ID card with exactly the same biometric data and a bit more behind it would be fucking useless.

 

[detective-boy]

Tescos are a bunch of bastards, but by and large they want me to be a happy and prosperous consumer, and don't care much beyond that. The State has a tendency to want a little more from me than that.

Can I book you a place on the "Please explain why all public services should be privatised immediately" thread?

 

[detective-boy]

Biometrics type stuff is no where near ready yet.

There is still some way to go ... but much is do-able now (not least fingerprints). [/QUOTE]

 

[detective-boy]

As Mr Blunkett confirmed shortly afterwards they would be able to establish new identities without any blemishes.

Largely because of the shortfalls in todays system - there would be a real problem with any of us now establishing we are who we say we are and not someone else ...

... but that is another advantage of biometrics - only one person has this fingerprint and iris scan or whatever ... so the system could be programmed to scan for matches before issuing a new identity.

There would undoubtedly be some teething problems, but when the initial issue was worked through and people were routinely issued with a card at whatever age was decided, that would recede and the younger that was, the less problems there would be, fewer 13 year olds needing multiple identities than 18 year olds, for instance ...

 

[ericjarvis]

BY. USING. BIOMETRICS. WHICH. CAN. BE. CHECKED. THERE. AND. THEN. AGAINST. THE. BIOMETRICS. DATA. ON. THE. ID. CARD. OR. IN. THE. ID. DATABASE.

That's a point in favour of biometric passport or driving license. It isn't a reason to have a separate ID card. It also only works in so far as the biometric data can't be faked, unless you can compare the biometrics directly with the database rather than the card. Again the ID card itself isn't particularly useful for a really secure system, and it makes identity fraud even easier once criminals have access to technology that allows them to fake the cards or hack the data.

Note that I'm not saying that it isn't possible to have an ID database that solely has some biometric data that cross references to name, address, and d-o-b, and thus go some way to preventing identity fraud. However that isn't currently what is being proposed.

Now tell me how the fuck you know that the passport you are shown belongs to the person showing it? Or isn't a forgery (particularly if it's not a UK one)? Or how you know that Utility Bill is genuine?

And tell me if a passport is so fucking reliable, how an ID card with exactly the same biometric data and a bit more behind it would be fucking useless.

The passport isn't currently treated as reliable. Nor is any one item of ID. Which is why it's necessary to provide several items of ID in order to do many things. Now explain how an ID card alone is more reliable than a biometric passport plus another item of ID.

 

[ericjarvis]

Can I book you a place on the "Please explain why all public services should be privatised immediately" thread?

Feel free. I'm simply saying that many of us are concerned by the idea of the State holding more information about us, and cross checking it more readily, because through bitter experience we know that the information will not always be accurate and that sometimes it will be used in ways that are not in our interests. That's all.

Because private industry can deal with one aspect of one procedure better than the state doesn't make it superior in any other respect, and vice versa. Which is why those of us who believe in a mixed economy have such an edge when debating with those who believe either in state run or privately run everything, we get to use logic.

 

[chainsaw cat]

I agree that that has been a far more likely usefulness of them ... but without the terror-related push I don't think they would have seen the light of day and so I can't agree that they've been suggested for that purpose behind the smokescreen of terror.

I also fail to recognise any tightening of the protection of capital against fraud - it is pretty much impossible to get anyone (police, CPS, Courts ...) to take fraud seriously or even take on an investigation or prosecution (I know, I spend part of my time doing exactly that!).

Going back to basics though, is out identity not something that we should wish to protect as individuals? Is not identity fraud - someone doing things (fraud or otherwise) in you name not something that we should worry about? And is not the ability to identify yourself as a member of a particular society not at the very root of that societie's ability to assign rights (e.g. welfare) and responsibilities (e.g. taxes) fairly and equitably according to the current system? Personally I think a very large number of our problems as a society today - at all sorts of levels - stem from our absolute inability to "prove" our identity to anyone even if we want to.

I've never had a moment of inconvenience due to any question of my identity and I don't know anyone who has. Quite the opposite.

Can you give some examples?

 

[chainsaw cat]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. When ID cards were first announced I was associating with some unsavoury characters quite a lot, all of them couldn't wait for ID cards, and were actually offended that I would want to campaign against them.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't need an ID card because I know who I am. If I think someone else needs to know, I'll tell them. There you go.

 

[gosub]

ID Cards (or a biometric passport) will be utterly useless in preventing identity fraud, in fact they will make it much much easier, as all a fraudster need do is steal/fake one document. And then there's the fact that the register will be wrong. Its input by human beings and so there will be shedloads of mistakes on it, which will mean many people wont be able to prove that they are who they are despite suposedly having all the relevant documentation.

Agree entirely, am against ID in principal, but think argument now needs getting a concrete and honest definition of "voluntary" out of our duplicitous and incompetent state. If "voluntary" is as I understand it, largely pointless -you can get by without it, this card surely creates a huge backdoor gateway for whomever registers your identity.

Even the fall back of ICAo standard biometrics will only be as strong as the most corrupt State bureaucracy in the world,and as with all bureaucrats extremely difficult to get past the jobsworth bullshit of infallibity when they are confrunted with a fuck up that could just as likely be caused for example by a bloke in Nigeria with access to the database.

 

[detective-boy]

That's a point in favour of biometric passport or driving license ... Now explain how an ID card alone is more reliable than a biometric passport plus another item of ID.

It isn't. There is no difference between a biometric passport and a biometric ID card ... except that not everyone has (or wants) a biometric passport and it would not be anywhere near as convenient to carry around with you.

 

[detective-boy]

I'm simply saying that many of us are concerned by the idea of the State holding more information about us, and cross checking it more readily, because through bitter experience we know that the information will not always be accurate and that sometimes it will be used in ways that are not in our interests.

You aware of how often you are overcharged for, say, insurance because of a private company holding inaccurate information and acting against your interests? Or how many people are refused credit, etc. ... due to a private company holding inaccurate information and acting against your interests? ... Had bailiffs calling round for a debt that has been paid due to a private company holding inaccurate information and acting against your interests? ... I could go on, but I have made the point.

If you think the State is the only one to fuck up information and that the private sector is all sweetness and light, you are way, way naive! It's just that the civil libertarians (and, more importantly, the media) don't go on and on about it.

 

[detective-boy]

Which is why those of us who believe in a mixed economy have such an edge when debating with those who believe either in state run or privately run everything, we get to use logic.

I totally agree - how could I do otherwise, it's where I make a living ...

 

[detective-boy]

I've never had a moment of inconvenience due to any question of my identity and I don't know anyone who has. Quite the opposite.

Can you give some examples?

Thats because you have lots of proof of your identity already and so you do not notice how often you use it ...

Proof of age (age-restricted purchases / admission)
Opening a bank account and loads of other financial transactions (anti-money-laundering regs)
Getting an SIA security sector licence (requirement of the SIA)
Avoiding being arrested for a minor offence (where police can arrest if name/address not known / believed)
Selling a car to someone presenting a cheque / bank draft ... who then turns out to be a fraudster
Finding someone else is already signing on for some benefit or other in your name
Almost all victims of conmen

... I could go on ...

(For me, the MOST important thing that a single, reliable piece of ID, provided to everyone (and I personally think it should be at no cost) would do, is enable each of us as individuals to significantly improve how we can protect ourselves against fraud)

 

[detective-boy]

If I think someone else needs to know, I'll tell them. There you go.

If you need to know who someone else is, you'll ask them. And they'll tell you whatever they fucking like ...

 

[moon23]

If the register is altered then your own fingerprint may not link to your entry on the file. Its also easy to make molds of fingerprints to fit over your own. Having multiple forms of ID gives you an insurance policy if one type is stolen or hacked as just one link in the chain is broken not the whole system.

 

[moon23]

The National ID register creates a log of everytime in identity is verified this tracks our lives and is a gross violation of our right to privacy. It costs companies to check ID on the register so the costs will be passed onto us when the civil servant make thier ID verification service the only official one, it will be a way of taxing us serve another expansion of bureaucrary

 

[kindofblue]

URGENT: WRITE TO YOUR MP, STOP ID POWERS NOW!

On Wednesday 8th July 2009, the House of Commons will vote on a group of three ID-related Statutory Instruments* including one called 'The Identity Cards Act 2006 (Provision of Information without Consent) Regulations 2009'.
The other two establish fees and penalties that can be applied to anyone registered on the ID database.

We need you to write to your MP *NOW* to get them to vote against these key pieces of secondary legislation.

The 'Provision of Information without Consent' regulation would give powers to the Identity and Passport Service to pass on information it holds on you to a host of other agencies WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT. This
information would include not only official document numbers, and personal details like your name, addresses and signature (more than enough to facilitate massive identity fraud) but also your fingerprints and even - to the police, intelligence services, taxman and ANYONE ELSE THEY AUTHORISE - details of every time you had had your ID checked, e.g to register with a GP, open a bank account or apply for credit, or travel abroad. Your medical and financial dealings conveniently tagged and indexed for further snooping.

Records of what information has been given to whom and why may be destroyed after 12 months or less. They would track you for life, but prefer to leave no trail of their activities.

Contrary to some recent media reports, the ID scheme is still very much alive. From 2011 onwards you will still be forced to register on the ID database when you apply for or renew your passport. Some, including young people and those living in the North West of England, may be duped or bullied into registering for a card from later this year - and once you are on the database, there is no way off. The fees, penalties and data-trafficking established by these regulations would apply to you for life.

Blocking these three Statutory Instruments would not only stall the Scheme, it provides an opportunity for ID opponents to show how committed they are to killing it off completely. It is important that as many MPs of all parties as possible vote against them on Wenesday 8th July.

There is very little time, so we need you to contact your MP straight away - http://www.WriteToThem.com makes it very easy - to tell him or her that you deeply object to having your personal information shared without your
knowledge or consent, and ask him or her to vote against 'The Identity Cards Act 2006 (Provision of Information without Consent) Regulations 2009' and the other two ID-related Statutory Instruments (see below for details) on Wednesday 8th July.

And don't forget to TELL OTHERS - link to our Facebook group at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=54487688497, e-mail your friends, but don't delay.

--

*Statutory Instruments (SIs) are pieces of legislation which allow the provisions of an Act of Parliament (e.g. Ministerial powers) to be brought into force or altered without Parliament having to pass a new Act. They are also sometimes referred to as secondary legislation or regulations. The three with which we are most immediately concerned are:

The Identity Cards Act 2006 (Fees) Regulations 2009
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/draft/ukdsi_9780111479070_en_1

The Identity Cards Act 2006 (Information and Code of Practice on Penalties)
Order 2009
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/draft/ukdsi_9780111479087_en_1

The Identity Cards Act 2006 (Provision of Information without Consent)
Regulations 2009
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/draft/ukdsi_9780111479063_en_1

 

[Azrael]

One way or another, the State has ALWAYS (since the Domesday Book, enayway) known all it can about us.

The state has collected far less data than technology allows for a good long while. It's been possible to have some form of database for centuries, but besides births, marriages, and deaths, and later NI numbers, we haven't really. It's been able to fingerprint the population for over a century, and compel us to notify the police when we move house etc, but again, it hasn't.

This isn't about the state's ability but its desire. Just because we can do a thing doesn't mean we must do that thing.

 

[moon23]

The state has collected far less data than technology allows for a good long while. It's been possible to have some form of database for centuries, but besides births, marriages, and deaths, and later NI numbers, we haven't really. It's been able to fingerprint the population for over a century, and compel us to notify the police when we move house etc, but again, it hasn't.

This isn't about the state's ability but its desire. Just because we can do a thing doesn't mean we must do that thing.

The Roman empire was requiring people to turn up for Census (for tax purposes) way before the Doomsday book. It's attributed to having caused riots and Jewish rebellions.

 

[Azrael]

The Roman empire was requiring people to turn up for Census (for tax purposes) way before the Doomsday book. It's attributed to having caused riots and Jewish rebellions.

Although Rome probably didn't require Jews to travel to Bethlehem because a distant ancestor was supposed to have lived there.

 

[detective-boy]

Its also easy to make molds of fingerprints to fit over your own.

No - it's possible, not easy.

Having multiple forms of ID gives you an insurance policy if one type is stolen or hacked as just one link in the chain is broken not the whole system.

Fine ... but each of those pieces of ID has to be valid and reliable in it's own right ... the vast majority of what we have now is laughably easy to forge (e.g. birth certificates for fucks sake ... what the fuck use are they as proof of anything ... and yet they are still one of our central ID documents )

 

[detective-boy]

Just because we can do a thing doesn't mean we must do that thing.

Indeed.

But the converse applies equally ... just because there may be some sort of downside doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

The current arguments against ID cards are a totally incoherent mixture of reasons and angles (issue, which biometrics, legislation about carrying / showing them, database behind them, access to different parts of the database ...) some of which have great persuasive value, others which don't. But whilst those against the cards fail to acknowledge ANY good on the part of ANY aspect of the proposed system they will never gain mass support and they will actually help those who may have ulterior motives get through some of the generally negative aspects. They are not uniformly mega-bad from all angles ... after all, the idea of a biometric-linked card issued to everyone is about <--> that far from our current passport system!

 

[detective-boy]

The Roman empire was requiring people to turn up for Census (for tax purposes) way before the Doomsday book.

Thank you for significantly strengthening my argument that it is nothing new ...

 

[Azrael]

They are not uniformly mega-bad from all angles [...]

Few things are. But I see no advantage to ID cards so great as to justify a wholesale change in the relationship between the individual and the state, not to mention the billions of pounds being pumped into them. This from a government that claims it can't spare six million quid to uphold trial by jury.

Issues are confused here, and it's Labour's fault. It's not about biometric passports in themselves. The state wanting control of our identity is the real issue, and using biometric passports to build the database by stealth, and to fingerprint the population, is a world away from digitising a photograph.

 

[detective-boy]

... and to fingerprint the population, is a world away from digitising a photograph.

Yes, but identifying that you are the person named in a document by biometrics is a world away from relying on (a) knowledge of your own date of birth and mother's maiden name (birth certificates); (b) signatures (all sorts of things) or (c) whether you look like the photograph (passports).

Why is having your fingerprint (especially if it were just one) so much worse than having your digitised photo? After all, presumably the conspiraloons would have us believe that you could have your face easily superimposed on any number of incriminating bits of CCTV without anyone noticing ...

 

[Azrael]

Why is having your fingerprint (especially if it were just one) so much worse than having your digitised photo?

If it were just one fingerprint, taken in the French manner (sealed before a judge and only opened with a court order) you'd have a point. So far as I'm aware Labour plan to collect a full set and enter them onto a computer database. Tony Blair has specifically said that they would be searched for matches with unsolved crimes. I've no idea what the conspiraloons would say: I'm simply concerned with keeping the state in check.

 

[detective-boy]

So far as I'm aware Labour plan to collect a full set and enter them onto a computer database. Tony Blair has specifically said that they would be searched for matches with unsolved crimes.

A classic example of mixing up things which may and may not be much of an issue. I think it may be more than one print (though I'm not sure) which may or may not be necessary (dependant on how discriminating a single print is, stats wise - if it wasn't going to work then as many as necessary to reduce false matches would be arguably OK). The computer database is essential if we are to have the major advantage of the technology we now have - that in real time to bona fides of the card holder can be verified so I have no problem with that in principle. But the searching of the database against crime scene marks is not so clear cut - would it be OK if it was for a child murderer? a paedophile? a rapist? ... where would people draw the line? That is a totally seperate debate and there may be a good argument at the serious crime end of the scale. But it does not automatically follow that just because we have the fingerprints on file, we should routinely search them for any or all crimes - they are seperate issues.

 

[Azrael]

But it does not automatically follow that just because we have the fingerprints on file, we should routinely search them for any or all crimes - they are seperate issues.

In theory, yes. But once the data is collected, it's much, much easier for mission creep to set in. You no longer have any say over how it's used. The best way to safeguard your fingerprints is to stop them being taken in the first place.

As for checking bona fides in real time, this can be done without routine access to fingerprints, which need only be checked if some fraud or other error is alleged. So far as I'm aware the French system operates in this way. Personally I see no need for any of it. Routine checks on identity shouldn't be necessary. If identity needs to be checked for opening back accounts or other specific purposes, passports can be used.

Having separate databases might appear troublesome, but it also protects us from an over-mighty state, and prosaically, if information is consolidated on one database, any glitch will have a much worse effect on a person. Convenience is probably illusionary.