ID cards in the UK.From a Left/Right perspective - Poll

[unbeliever 10]

It seems clear that there are classical liberals in both the "left" and "right" camps, and also that some degree of authoritarianism also exists in both camps.

This doesn't come as a galloping shock to me, as I'v previously made the case that the "right" and "left" labels are increasingly meaningless as the political debate is far more complex than that.

 

This all seems to me like a case of flawed logic:

We have some problems, something must be done. This is something, therefore we must do it.

 

A voluntary ID card scheme would solve the practical problems for those who have neither driving licenses nor passports. I'm pretty sure such schemes exist. The law enforcement case is extremely weak.

Why are we even considering it?

[L00b 441]

Well of course, that's obvious.

So why did you bother picking at my original post?

But that does mean that there is no need for an ID card to be introduced on the basis of making banking easier.

I don't think anyone has argued that ID cards are required for simplifying banking.

 

That particular example in that isolated context is simply one of the many benefits of it, the sum total of which makes the case.

Basically there seems to be no good argument for the introduction of ID cards, and quite a few legitimate fears about how they would be introduced and/or used.

Other than the perennial issue of data securitisation by the UK government, which is a valid concern based on priors but which can be mitigated technically, I've not seen any "fear" legitimised in any way so far.

[Cyclone 10]

Do you mean post #76, where I replied to someone else... Or your subsequent post #78 where you jumped in and replied to me?

 

---------- Post added 05-08-2015 at 09:05 ----------

 

Incorrect.

 

Police already checks ID as a matter of routine.

 

Police wouldn't have to 'enforce' the carrying out of ID card, it would simply expect people it asks about ID to produce it.

.

 

Whilst I am going back checking to see if I "picked at" your post.

 

This is untrue. The police in the UK have no right to even demand your name and address unless you have committed a crime or are suspected of such.

 

If they just walk up in the street and ask you for that information you can just refuse, you won't be breaking the law, and if they try to force the issue THEY will be breaking the law.

 

There is no 'sum total' of benefits from ID cards. All of the coincidental benefits could be achieved by making it compulsory to have a passport. Something that is far less intrusive and would be much more acceptable to the public (oh, and it would be cheaper than the proposed cost of the ID card the last time the ID was shot down).

 

The inappropriate collection and centralisation of the data, the potential for misuse and abuse, even ignoring the governments inability to secure data.

Currently all your different bits of data, scattered across different departments are legally protected by the DPA from being cross referenced and centralised. So whilst you might be correct that the NHS know my height and eye colour, the police cannot access that information, nor can the council or HMRC.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Cyclone

[tzijlstra 11]

There are countless benefits to a central population registry based on ID cards.

 

L00b mentions data securitisation (sic, it is data security imo ) - this is a key-factor. We are living in a digital age, yet a lot of systems in the UK are still designed to operate on a classic pen-and-paper basis. In the Netherlands we have something called DigiD, by no means a flawless system, but it does help streamline online government services tremendously. If I had one, I could check my student-loan and pay back, my tax-situation can be shown to me with the same log-in, I can pay the council tax, fines, health insurance etc. online. I can be notified when the NHS equivalent issues a call for men between 30-50 who have been in a certain town where there has been a TB outbreak at an event with predominantly men of that age group. I can register for my donor-card etc.

 

The fact in Britain is that for each of those the government is operating highly inefficiently or is simply incapable of performing such services due to a lack of a centralised ID system.

 

I can rent/buy a house in the Netherlands just bringing my ID, no need to bring previous bills, signing reams and reams of paper and so on. I can use that card to identify with the police, the council, the hospital, the GP and so on and so on. In the Netherlands the election commission does not have to send out voting cards nor does it have to keep an antiquated voters register. It is all centralised, if I move from one council to another all I do is update my address information and they immediately know that I have changed from one electoral area to another.

 

There is nothing scary about carrying an ID card. In fact, what would be the objection to having one? Are people suggesting that they dislike the idea that if the police arrests them the police know for a fact who you are rather than having to try and establish correct identity time and time again? How inefficient is that?

[L00b 441]

Do you mean post #76, where I replied to someone else... Or your subsequent post #78 where you jumped in and replied to me?

Neither, actually: I was mistakenly thinking of the 'hotel' one in the other thread when I typed that. I offer my apologies.

This is untrue. The police in the UK have no right to even demand your name and address unless you have committed a crime or are suspected of such.

 

If they just walk up in the street and ask you for that information you can just refuse, you won't be breaking the law, and if they try to force the issue THEY will be breaking the law.

You are again inferring something I haven't said: the Police will check your ID when they stop you at the roadside for <whatever>, bring you in for <whatever> and, generally, when they have cause to establish your identity in relation to an occurrence of interest to them which they are investigating.

 

That's "checking ID" exactly as I posted it, and within the meaning of how I posted it given the context of the post.

 

I never said police carry out ID checks on the spot like e.g. French police can do on the street. Indeed, I've posted, clearly and unambiguously, that new Statutes would have to be brought in if the Police was expected to do that.

There is no 'sum total' of benefits from ID cards. All of the coincidental benefits could be achieved by making it compulsory to have a passport.

And that differs from making it compulsory to have an ID card how?

 

There is no functional or contents difference between them, other than the facts that a passport is much bulkier and its purpose is to facilitate overseas travel (beyond the EU, so long as the UK remains in the EU).

 

So how, exactly, would making a passport compulsory be "far less intrusive and would be much more acceptable to the public"?

The inappropriate collection and centralisation of the data, the potential for misuse and abuse, even ignoring the governments inability to secure data.

Currently all your different bits of data, scattered across different departments are legally protected by the DPA from being cross referenced and centralised. So whilst you might be correct that the NHS know my height and eye colour, the police cannot access that information, nor can the council or HMRC.

What relevance existing passport data, eh?

[Cyclone 10]

There are countless benefits to a central population registry based on ID cards.

 

L00b mentions data securitisation (sic, it is data security imo ) - this is a key-factor. We are living in a digital age, yet a lot of systems in the UK are still designed to operate on a classic pen-and-paper basis. In the Netherlands we have something called DigiD, by no means a flawless system, but it does help streamline online government services tremendously. If I had one, I could check my student-loan and pay back, my tax-situation can be shown to me with the same log-in, I can pay the council tax, fines, health insurance etc. online. I can be notified when the NHS equivalent issues a call for men between 30-50 who have been in a certain town where there has been a TB outbreak at an event with predominantly men of that age group. I can register for my donor-card etc.

 

The fact in Britain is that for each of those the government is operating highly inefficiently or is simply incapable of performing such services due to a lack of a centralised ID system.

 

I can rent/buy a house in the Netherlands just bringing my ID, no need to bring previous bills, signing reams and reams of paper and so on. I can use that card to identify with the police, the council, the hospital, the GP and so on and so on. In the Netherlands the election commission does not have to send out voting cards nor does it have to keep an antiquated voters register. It is all centralised, if I move from one council to another all I do is update my address information and they immediately know that I have changed from one electoral area to another.

 

There is nothing scary about carrying an ID card. In fact, what would be the objection to having one? Are people suggesting that they dislike the idea that if the police arrests them the police know for a fact who you are rather than having to try and establish correct identity time and time again? How inefficient is that?

 

A lot of what you describe is the same in the UK. There are online systems to do/view most of the things you mention, and whilst voting cards are sent out in the post to confirm current address details, it's not that they aren't stored in a DB, it's just far more reliable than expecting people to log on and update an address themselves.

 

Go back to the list of all the data the ID card was intended to store the last time it was proposed.

If it isn't intended to do that, and is just to prove ID, then why not just issue everyone with a passport, using the existing system, and make the passport number everyone's unique ID... Passports contain biometric chips these days as well, that could easily also hold an address (if address HAS to be part of ID, which I'm not sure it does).

 

---------- Post added 05-08-2015 at 09:56 ----------

 

Apology accepted L00b.

[tzijlstra 11]

A lot of what you describe is the same in the UK. There are online systems to do/view most of the things you mention, and whilst voting cards are sent out in the post to confirm current address details, it's not that they aren't stored in a DB, it's just far more reliable than expecting people to log on and update an address themselves.

 

Go back to the list of all the data the ID card was intended to store the last time it was proposed.

If it isn't intended to do that, and is just to prove ID, then why not just issue everyone with a passport, using the existing system, and make the passport number everyone's unique ID... Passports contain biometric chips these days as well, that could easily also hold an address (if address HAS to be part of ID, which I'm not sure it does).

 

---------- Post added 05-08-2015 at 09:56 ----------

 

Apology accepted L00b.

 

Issuing a passport would indeed be one way to solve part of the puzzle, but it is the data infrastructure behind that which is antiquated in the UK. It is far easier to fraudulently use someone else's personality here than it is in the Netherlands due to this. If you know your way around the systems you can easily create a new identity, very handy if you arrive in the country illegally, for example.

[Cyclone 10]

So the police can already check ID. Nothing would change. They would still need to do more than look at your plastic card in order to actually verify the data.

 

Having a compulsory passport but not being required to carry it isn't exactly intrusive, and doesn't involve the centralisation of lots of data (and paying an additional £100 for a bit of plastic).

If the intent is to actually just ensure that everyone has a valid, hard to forge, well recognised form of ID, then extending the passport system is surely the obvious answer.

I guess there are a few people who would have a passport denied for some reason, but they can have a big red stamp in it saying "NOT VALID FOR TRAVEL" or something.

 

The fact is that the only ID card proposal we have as a reference had an extensive, and intrusive list of data that would be centrally maintained. It was an authoritarian governments wet dream. And whilst the current government might be benevolent (if you're rich at least), there is no guarantee that future governments will be.

At the risk of invoking Godwins law, what would the Nazi government of 1937 have done with such a wealth of data...

 

---------- Post added 05-08-2015 at 10:02 ----------

 

Issuing a passport would indeed be one way to solve part of the puzzle, but it is the data infrastructure behind that which is antiquated in the UK. It is far easier to fraudulently use someone else's personality here than it is in the Netherlands due to this. If you know your way around the systems you can easily create a new identity, very handy if you arrive in the country illegally, for example.

 

There are better ways to address this than adding more and more layers on top of the existing systems. Nobody wants to touch them though, as they are antiquated and poorly understood.

I worked at HMRC for a little while on IT systems. I never touched the legacy stuff, but it sounded like a poorly understood, creaking, tottering pile of assumptions, hacks and magic.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Cyclone

[unbeliever 10]

You're all discussing an imaginary compulsary ID card scheme that a UK government might introduce.

That's not really useful.

It is far more likely that you'll be offered an ID card scheme like the 2006 one.

 

A party manifesto including ID cards is not going to go into the kind of detail you need to be sure that you're not getting 2006 style ID cards. Pretty much the same establishment will be enacting your new ID card scheme as were behind the 2006 one. There's no reason to think it would be significantly different.

[tzijlstra 11]

There are better ways to address this than adding more and more layers on top of the existing systems. Nobody wants to touch them though, as they are antiquated and poorly understood.

I worked at HMRC for a little while on IT systems. I never touched the legacy stuff, but it sounded like a poorly understood, creaking, tottering pile of assumptions, hacks and magic.

 

No this is where perhaps I haven't been clear, so I am pleased you brought that up, the new system would replace the creaking mess that lies underneath. I know several people that work on large scale IT government projects and the complaint is ever recurring: The underlying systems are unsuitable. Without wiping that slate clean you are never going to fix the issue. There is a good reason most UK IT investments fail.