ID Cards

ID Cards
Is anyone here in favour? If so, why?

I'm strongly against.

Not so much in favour as not particularly bothered. The only real negative aspects are the cost and impracticality; the civil liberties arguments don't really cut it with me, because I don't see how it is a breach of privacy or your civil rights.

Good good. Anyone want to take up the challenge?

Not so much in favour as not particularly bothered. The only real negative aspects are the cost and impracticality; the civil liberties arguments don't really cut it with me, because I don't see how it is a breach of privacy or your civil rights. There are two broad arguments here. Firstly, there's the one probably most people will find it impossible to argue with: look at the government's record. Are they actually capable of preventing this data from being released? Are they capable of making a secure system Given that this would probably be on the world's top 10 list of hacker targets (greatest amount of personal data in any database!) is anyone, actually? Secondly, why should people whom the state has no reason to suspect of wrongdoing be investigated like criminals? The state has no right to investigate us unless it can explain why it thinks we might be guilty. Therefore, use of this system to solve crime (which wouldn't actually work, of course) would be wrong. Further, no body, state or private, has the right to collect data without a clear, limited purpose. That's why we have laws like the Data Protection Act 1998. The NIR ID card system is a sort of "catch all" database - it stores everything they can think of on the off-chance it's needed in the future. The state has no right to require that of its citizens. I suppose a completely voluntary scheme (not the compulsory scheme they've tried to call voluntary) would get around this point to some extent. Others still apply. I think we're going to end up at self-ownership here. That's what it boils down to. I can't see how liberalism could make much sense to you if you reject self ownership.

Nicely put, Appius.

Yes, that is nicely put. Yet I think there is another objection to ID cards too, which you might broadly call a constitutional objection. In any democracy you generally have a division of power between several different institutions (for example the Govt, the House of Commons, House of Lords, Civil Service etc). Sometimes this is explicitly set down in a constitution; in other cases, such as Britain, it is implicit. If any one institution tries without good reason to change that division of power in its own favour, the other institutions have a duty to demand that good reasons be put forward, and to resist the change if the reasons given don't seem compelling. In fact the electorate, or public, also form one of these institutions, as it has a defined role in governing the British state. Our role in government is to elect the House of Commons every few years, and in addition we have various rights and privileges, just as the other institutions do. However, ID cards (and the databases that go with them) give the government vastly more knowledge about individual members of the public. Knowledge is (as we all know) power. Therefore the introduction of ID cards changes the balance of power between two of the institutions which make up the British state - the government and the public. Therefore members of the public have a constitutional duty to resist this power-grab by the government by refusing to cooperate with the introduction of ID cards. (The flaw in this argument - maybe - is that the public has already given its assent to this power-shift by electing the bunch of rogues now in government.)

I think there's a lot of merit in that argument. Thanks. The solution is easy: whether it is a good thing for the constitution is not dictated by whether or not the public are prepared to elect a party which supports it. Here's a really simple argument: At the moment we have a system in which the police officer is required to present his or her credentials to the citizen before doing his or her job. The proposition is to create a system in which the citizen is required to present his or her credentials to the police officer.

I think there's a lot of merit in that argument. Thanks. The solution is easy: whether it is a good thing for the constitution is not dictated by whether or not the public are prepared to elect a party which supports it. Here's a really simple argument: At the moment we have a system in which the police officer is required to present his or her credentials to the citizen before doing his or her job. The proposition is to create a system in which the citizen is required to present his or her credentials to the police officer. Or a system in which both are required to show their credentials to one another, which seems considerably fairer. Regarding the government's record, it is better to look to the future and attempt to mold and improve it than it is to look to the past. With something as important as ID cards one must make the assumption that the utmost care and effort would be taken into producing formidable defences against the release of the data; no sane person would not. There is a difference between investigation of an individual and the mere recording of data. It is supposed to aid criminal investigation when it does need to happen. And you cannot say definitely that it would not solve or prevent crime. I would support a voluntary opt-out scheme in favour of a compulsory one, to be sure. I think we might end up at self-ownership too. Probably best not to continue.

Or a system in which both are required to show their credentials to one another, which seems considerably fairer. Why? The police officer's the one doing the stopping. Therefore he or she must prove entitlement to do so. Unless you're going to argue that citizens need papers to show officers if they want to ask for directions (for example) then I think we should accept it's different (and that my example therefore holds) and move on. Regarding the government's record, it is better to look to the future and attempt to mold and improve it than it is to look to the past. With something as important as ID cards one must make the assumption that the utmost care and effort would be taken into producing formidable defences against the release of the data; no sane person would not. I find the suggestion that these measures have not been properly taken with, for example, the NHS computer system extremely disturbing. The simple fact of the matter is that such a database would have such a huge number of authorised users and access points that it would be impossible to ensure security. It would have to operate over the Internet, which gives every hacker on the planet the means to attack it. Nobody has every built a completely secure database and I see no reason to believe it's going to happen now. It's almost certainly impossible. There is a difference between investigation of an individual and the mere recording of data. It is supposed to aid criminal investigation when it does need to happen. And you cannot say definitely that it would not solve or prevent crime. How do you get/check the data to be recorded? QED. No, I can't say it wouldn't ever help. I see absolutely no application to preventing crime, other than solving previous crimes by the same person. Its fingerprint scans would be almost useless for scanning because of the way they're taken. It would be very rare to find a fingerprint at a crime scene which would match the type of fingerprint they're proposing without also matching millions of others. And therein lies another problem: a scan of the police national computer already yields masses of false positives - hundreds, even thousands sometimes, I gather. Scale that up by an order or magnitude or two and it becomes pretty well useless. So its usefulness is questionable. It would, as mentioned, put a huge amount of personal data in a single place - I wonder how many records could fit on a couple of CDs - which would just be asking to be compromised. Passwords can be changed. Even names, addressess... DNA sequences are harder to change. Which is why they're used for identification in the first place. I would support a voluntary opt-out scheme in favour of a compulsory one, to be sure. I think we might end up at self-ownership too. Probably best not to continue. Maybe. I still don't like the completely voluntary scheme. The best argument against that would be that it would then be almost completely useless and not worth the money - even presuming that the full database would be!

The solution is easy: whether it is a good thing for the constitution is not dictated by whether or not the public are prepared to elect a party which supports it. I agree completely. However, does this give individuals (us, for instance) the right to obstruct the introduction of ID cards? I think it might do, but I'm not sure.

The solution is easy: whether it is a good thing for the constitution is not dictated by whether or not the public are prepared to elect a party which supports it. I agree completely. However, does this give individuals (us, for instance) the right to obstruct the introduction of ID cards? I think it might do, but I'm not sure. I think it does, actually. When the state oversteps the limits of its authority as defined by the harm principle its actions are not legitimate.

I am strongly against ID cards as I see them as an infringement of civil liberties.

I am also very strongly against ID Cards. I cannot believe my esteemed friend, Akria, is arguing in favour. My eyes hurt!

When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty. The question we have to ask ourselves is how far our courage will take us. I'm not too sure.

View Full Version: ID Cards