We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Putting the question Compulsory state ID cards are a monstrous assault on individual liberty, as well as useless in protecting us from the increasingly sophisticated terror groups who threaten us. That much is clear.
So here’s a question. At every possible occasion, we should ask Conservative MPs, including new party leader, Michael Howard, whether his party would abolish any such compulsory ID scheme put into place by the current Labour government. Similarly, selection committees for prospective parliamentary candidates should be urged to select those who pledge to reverse any ID card law.
Of course, when he was Home Secretary in the 1990s, Howard proposed ID cards, and his record on civil liberties is, to put it mildly, dismal. But he has a chance to repent, to start anew.
So to repeat the challenge – Tories – stand up and fight the ID card.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Jonathan, There was an item in The Telegraph today that said the Scottish Parliament (for what it’s worth) is agin’ ID cards, so they won’t be mandatory in Scotland. This will be a blow to the whole idea.
So why are national ID cards so bad?
Don’t you have various forms of identificataion already? Can’t the government track your movements by simply looking up your credit card uses?
Frankly I don’t really see what is so utterly terrible about national ID cards. Assuming that there are some restrictions on them and on the government’s potential to abuse them, I can see a lot of potential good coming out of their use.
Admittedly I’m very much in favor of individual rights and the idea of some government clown tracking my movements kinda wierd. But really what issue is that if you’re just an average person?
ed
What’s bad? Hmm. Well the fact that it’s gotten to the point of ID cards indicates extreme badness in the situation – even in their absence. No healthy culture would even be having this discussion. Just adding ID cards won’t much further deepen the pragmatic badness level. But, they are a very important symbol, because they concede ownership. Only a slave lives contingent upon someone else’s permission. Only a slave goes around identity-tagged against his will, for the owner’s benefit and to his detriment.
Ed:
There’s a great piece in the Spectator this week that elucidates the badness, both emotional and practical.
I have to agree with ed that it isn’t such a big deal in practice, even if it is a huge change in theory.
The Blair government has championed all kinds of Orwellian measures already, and it stands to reason that they already have connected all available databases on British citizens. The sad truth is that as far as they are concerned you are already completely transparent and don’t need the ID card to keep track of you and your habits.
ed’s point about credit card use is a good one. What needs to be added is that anything private businesses know about you will asoon be known to government agencies, and conversely private enterprise has ways and means to get at publicly collected data. So you don’t just have to fear what the government might do to you, you also might get bad treatment by companies you want to do business with. Reckless drivers known to the police will have to pay more for car insurance and if you buy too much booze, tobacco or candy (risk of diabetes) on your credit card you’ll have to pay more for private health insurance (if insurers are evn willing to extend coverage to you) or you might even be excluded from employment at a lot of businesses.
Your credit card is also much more handy to track you than an ID card can ever be since you’ll use it many times more often than the police or anybody else can check your ID card. Using stochastic programs on these data the police can then triangulate your most likely geographical location if it wants to. So if you want to minimize what the powers that be know about you, you should pay with your credit card as little as possible and at no more than two or three locations at most. And even there you should never use it to pay for anything that might be called unhealthy to keep your insurance costs down.
Paranoia is a good personal policy in this context, but the ID card is the wrong reason for it.
ID cards are the addition of state machinery that *can* be used to abuse the public. There is no guarantee that they will be used wholesale for such a purpose and I suspect that there will only be incidents of abuse, but there is still a danger.
I guess it’s all down to whether you instinctively trust the state or not. If you don’t then the only way that ID cards become acceptable is if the government provides significant proof that their introduction will benefit the citizen substantially. They have consistently failed to do that, hence all the doubt.
To be able to choose how one identifies oneself is an important right, but one that is a little abstract. I personally find ID cards a very sinister development, but there are practical objections too.
Once introduced, they will inevitably become an legal requirement when opening a bank account, boarding a plane or perhaps even borrowing a video. Private parties will be required to enforce this on pain of serving jail time. Instantly, the card issuing authority becomes extremely powerful, for they have gained a kind of monopoly in personal authentication. What are the chances of prompt and courteous service from such an agency? Even the DVLA have an incentive to be slightly efficient, for if they become too lazy and unhelpful, more drivers will run the gauntlet of unlicensed motoring. As ID checks are mandated for more and more daily activities, we will be ever more compelled to deal with these bureaucrats. And a new police power suggests itself – the right to confiscate ID for ‘investigative’ purposes, which would be an effective but informal form of punishment for those stepping out of line.
There already exist too many repressive laws requiring one to identify oneself in private transactions. An ID card will grant the government a monopoly in personal identification, and this will be exploited and abused, as are all monopolies.
Goodness, Ralf, I wouldn’t dream of paying for booze with a credit card. Or – good little paranoid right wing American privacy nut that I am – using a loyalty card that had accurate information about my identity (check out CASPIAN, Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering, if you have a minute). All my in-person retail transactions are strictly cash.
I realize I’m not doing much more than slowing the intrusion of government in my larder, but anything I can do to harass, annoy or inconvenience …
Woops! Bad link. Should be http://www.nocards.org
Has anybody noticed that the target=”new” is being stripped out of URLs if you preview? Has that always been the case?
I wonder how ID cards, with the implicit order contained in their very existence, squares with one’s right, in Britain, to call oneself anything one likes as long as their is no intention to defraud. For example, if I wished to do so, I could book a table in a restaurant under the name Lady Plonk and, when I turned up, say I was Lady Plonk. This is perfectly legal. I don’t think anywhere in our Common Law is there a requirement that we present ourselves in our everyday lives as who we really are. So how does this square with ID cards?
Its a pretty simple cost/benefit analysis. Likely benefits of a national ID card – minimal at best. Definite costs – not small (I am talking here about the out-of-pocket costs). Potential for abuse – also not small.
So why have them?
Seriously folks. A national ID card is rather moot simply because we have generally gone beyond that point.
1. At least in America it’s incredibly difficult to do anything without a credit card. It’s become so difficult to conduct daily business that businesses have implemented debit (ATM) card procedures so that people without credit cards can live a regular life. You might say that it happened because banks want to do more business and make more money. You’d be right. But it can also be said that the popularity of such programs indicates just how impossible it can be to do anything without such a mechanism.
An example is renting a movie. Unless you’re dealing with a small boutique video rental store, you need to present a credit card to rent a video.
How’s that for Orwell?
2. The future is bright and it’s wireless.
Fact is that, IMHO, cellular technology is pretty much going to be supplanted by ubiquitous wi-fi. The technology is available that would allow companies to complete, and cost effectively, blanket entire cities and counties with wi-fi access. With such a mechanism it would be possible to track people simply by monitoring which wi-fi station their electronic gadgets are interfaced with.
3. Cell phones are starting to implement additional technology that would/will allow for GPS tracking and purchases. In all cases it would allow for a third party to engage in tracking.
4. Public cameras.
These devices are literally everywhere. They’re even mounted on the Washington Monument. I read a report, can’t remember the link, where downtown NYC has some 200+ cameras in 1 sq mile. Or more.
*shrug*
Fact is that anyone trying to live in an information age society is going to be vulnerable to tracking. The question isn’t whether or not it will happen, but how it can be controlled. Currently there are few if any controls and that’s far more dangerous than any national ID card.
You might make the pretentious argument that a national ID card is equal to slavery but that’s nonsense. I carry a driver’s license, am I a slave? I carry a Social Security Card (for identification of federal benefits), am I a slave? I carry an auto insurance card in my car, is my car or I a slave?
Frankly the whole “a slave” argument actually demeans real slavery. Real slavery results in murder, rape, torture and the wholesale abuse of innumerable human beings. A national ID card is an irritation in comparison.
Remember. If there is a process of implementation, it can be controlled. If there’s no implementation process, then it’s totally uncontrollable.
ed
Ed, while I would concede some of the points you make above – thanks for the responses, btw – I think the symbolism of the ID card matters a great deal. I think that is the real reason behind Blunkett’s support for the idea.
Think about it, police will have the right to demand you show your papers at any point they deem convenient, or show up at a police station within 24 hours. Unless police have such power, the idea of Id cards being useful will fall apart.
Consider what it would feel like not to be able to walk out of your front door without risking hassle from a copper. Imagine how absent-minded folk like me will constantly be messed around because of this.
I will concede that the authorities already have many ways to track our movements. But then, if they do, why do they want the ID card anyway?
Logic and liberty suggest the idea should be put into the ash can.
Oh, there’s another reason for opposing ID cards. The French have them.
have a nice weekend.
“Frankly the whole “a slave” argument actually demeans real slavery. Real slavery results in murder, rape, torture and the wholesale abuse of innumerable human beings.”
But mostly it doesn’t result in any of those things. Merely drudgery.
However, none of that matters because the starting point of the slave condition is the accepted belief that human beings are property to be owned. From that point on the ‘property’ may be neglected, cherished or abused but the moral failing is in the underlying assumption not the degree of maltreatment applied.
A complusory national ID card, issued and regulated by the government, is a manifestation of the idea that the citizen belongs to the state and not the other way around. The things you have said about the growth of surveillance technology are all quite true but these are two quite separate issues which should not be conflated.
Ed,
I think Verity’s point is the most important one here, which is the traditional right to use an alias. Most normal people would never bother doing so but certain people at certain times will choose to do so to protect their privacy or even their personal safety. For most of the examples you cite, aliasing is an option. For example, were I to operate an illegal vitamin smuggling ring to help a sick relative, not an impossible scenario in the near future, I might buy a pay-as-I-go mobile phone. My new phone number would be a kind of electronic alias. The trouble with national ID is that it imposes an identifying reference on a person which cannot be shaken off, making that person observable by state and private persons alike. The person with the sole right to impose identities then gains enormous power.
By the way, how easy is it to obtain a credit card with an arbtitrary name on it in Britain?
ed – you say you carry a driver’s licence, a social security card, etc. Yes, in return for permission to drive, in return for receiving federal benefits, in return for claiming on your car insurance in the event of an accident. An ID card offers nothing in return. Nothing. All it does is say the government is boss of you and you’d better not forget it. The British already – it gives me chills every time I hear the phrase – refer to politicans as “our political masters”. This is one step further along this slave – or, given your sensibilities – serf mindset. You are the property of the state. You don’t own the state. The state owns you. You are no longer freeborn.
As Frued said “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”
In the US you have many rights but the right to anonymity isn’t one of them. If you asked by the police to identify yourself you are required to do so. Failure to identify yourself with officially accepted identification documents (drivers license, sheriffs card, etc.) is grounds for arrest.
In times long past when most people in a jurisdiction knew the average person on the street official identification documents weren’t necessary. In todays urban centers it is rare that you know more than just a handful of people. A national identification is a just a natural evolution of society.
The identification card, just like a firearm, is a nuetral object. It is what is done with the identification card that needs scrutiny.
The Blair government has championed all kinds of Orwellian measures already, and it stands to reason that they already have connected all available databases on British citizens.
Yes to the first bit and no to the second bit.
Three reasons:
1. Governments are absolutely hopeless at IT projects and this would be a particularly difficult undertaking.
2. Use of data is constrained to the purpose for which it was collected under the Data Protection Act. Although the Government would like to match data across many agencies, it is not yet allowed to do so except in specific cases and to extend that it would need primary legislation
3. Technical problems. There are gazillions of different databases, all with lots of information about us but they are all in different formats and (here’s the clincher) there is no reliable and consistent way of cross matching the records to a single individual. How many John Smiths are there in the country for example? A national ID scheme could force companies, government agencies and so on to append a single national ID field to each person’s record in any database and open it up to search by the government. So a national ID card scheme really is a massive step towards Big Brother over and above what is already in place.
Hmmm. “An ID card offers nothing in return. Nothing.”
1. Except that it offers some hope of controlling the annual problem of illegal immigration. Along with the financial burdens of housing, supporting and teaching both the illegal immigrants and their children.
2. Except that it offers some hope of controlling or tracking terrorists. Sure people will be able to fake the cards. Any system that can’t take that into account is doomed. But with centralized databases that have retinal patterns, photos and fingerprints I’d say it would be a LOT harder to get by the police than with a driver’s license.
3. Except that it offers some hope of controlling identity theft. This crime is a serious problem and it’s only getting worse. The problems inherent in the current mish-mash system of identification allows for extreme amounts of fraud.
4. Symbolism is a null argument.
Sure there are many symbolic things, but those are largely individual. There are some symbols that exist on a national or cultural level, but I’d doubt a national ID card would approach that. In the case of Britain I’d say that Guiness has more symbolism than a national ID card.
5. Parental anxiety.
Another basic point would be that it would allow for identification across the internet. While it wouldn’t be useful, nor prudent, to use this mechanism over all aspects of the internet, it CAN be extremely useful in some situations. Particularly those involved with children and money.
And dating.
I think that anyone here spent time in an online chat room with a “Debbie” and then later found out it was this short, hairy bald 48 year old guy would be very much in favor of a national ID card. 🙂
6. A national ID card would be more efficient.
*Shrug* I don’t break laws. I really don’t see why I would want to. If I don’t like something then I personally go out and try to change things through the system. So I’m not all that afraid of what other people might know about me. If it makes someone’s day to know what book I’m reading or where I was yesterday, then good for you. Frankly my life is so bloody boring if it were my job to track me, I’d kill myself.
7. No real slavery isn’t “Merely drudgery”.
I don’t think I really have to expound on this issue. But I want to stated very clearly that slavery is NOT drudgery. Unit 731 this is the true face of slavery.
8. I completely disagree with the position that a national ID card somehow implies ownership. There is no comparions nor any basis for such a judgement. You might as well state that *citizenship* itself is a document that implies ownership as there are laws that affect citizens in different ways that non-citizens. Do you object to that “ownership”?
9. I can think of hundreds of questionable uses for an alias and not one good one. Sorry but I don’t see where it’s a good thing to use an alias. Besides just where are you planning on using an alias NOW? In America at least the only places you can use an alias is in situations where it’s completely indifferent. I suppose I could use the alias “John Courage” when buying a movie ticket, but they wouldn’t care. On the other hand if I want to rent a hotel room, well in a decent hotel at least, they’ll want a credit card. So I might be able to say I’m “John Courage” but the hotel staff will think I’m a complete twink for doing so. So if you want me to buy into this you’re going to have to come up with an actual real life reason for wanting to use an alias and way it would actually work, here and now, without a national ID card in place. Frankly I don’t think it could be done.
10. Frankly the whole “political masters” thing and the “freeborn” doesn’t really jive anymore. In order to exist within the structure of a modern information age society you are forced to conform to it’s requirements. The most basic requirement of an information age society is the accurate determination of identity.
After all. When you go to visit the Samizdata website, you want to actually go to that website and not a spoof or fake right? So the accurate identification of websites via the DNS/ICANN system is allowing you to bypass the difficulties that plague other aspects of modern life.
In some cases this sort of thing can be grossly bad. But there can be positives and, if nothing else, it is inevitable.
*shrug* If nothing else. It’ll cut down on all that virtual pr0n in the chat rooms. 🙂
ed
No, Reid, the ID card is not a neutral object. Not unless I can refuse to have one. A thing thrust upon me against my will is never morally inert.
I’d be interested to see the statute that requires us to show identification to law enforcement. I know officers are given much latitude in deciding whether to make vagrancy arrests, but I don’t know that there’s a crime of not-showing-papers-to-the-man.
Otherwise, why did Rudy have such a wretched time in court rounding up the homeless? Don’t tell me people who live on steam grates and poop on the street all have their papers in order.
It may be different in the UK but in America you must identify yourself. It’s a mistake, I think, to say that you must provide identification when asked by the police. But you must identify yourself. If you have documentation then you should use it, though I do not believe it is required. If you do not have documentation then a verbal identification is sufficient.
Of course if you use an alias at that time I’m sure the police will be looking to talk to you again in short order.
ed
Well, ed, you’re nothing if not irritating.
1) You can halt immigration, in an island nation, at the shores and airports – if you have the will, rather than the intent to change the face of Britain. No need to burden the citizens with ID cards.
2) Oh gosh, tracking terrorists! Why would we have to do that if the government hadn’t let them in in the first place? So the government is not our friend.
3) Controls identity theft. Sure. There is no such thing as false ID. ed – what someone can think up, someone equally smart can equal.
6) Your worst point. “Oooooh, if I’ve done nothing wrong, I have nothing to be afraid of!” So? If a dog has been a good doggie, it has nothing to fear from its master.
7) Get over the slavery bit. We’ve changed it to serfdom in your honour.
9) You “don’t see where it’s a good thing” to use an alias. So? Who said we have to live by your idea of what is good and what’s bad? Why should a hotel refuse me a room if I pay cash and demand “identification”? I thought cash was identification of the means to pay. If I want to use an alias, I am bloody well free to use one and I won’t be asking for your, or the state’s approval, ed.
“Except that it offers some hope of controlling the annual problem of illegal immigration.”
The very day ID cards are launched in the UK, perfect forgeries will be available on the streets of Lagos and Karachi.
“Along with the financial burdens of housing, supporting and teaching both the illegal immigrants and their children.”
A problem of having a welfare state not privacy.
“Except that it offers some hope of controlling or tracking terrorists.”
How? Will Islamofascist nutjobs carry cards bearing the words ‘Terrorist: kindly detain me”?
“Except that it offers some hope of controlling identity theft.”
A guaranteed way of turning it from a problem into an epidemic.
“In the case of Britain I’d say that Guiness has more symbolism than a national ID card.”
Eh?
“Another basic point would be that it would allow for identification across the internet.”
How? And anything that can be made can be forged.
“I think that anyone here spent time in an online chat room with a “Debbie” and then later found out it was this short, hairy bald 48 year old guy would be very much in favor of a national ID card. :)”
The only way to find out if shorty, baldy man has been teasing with you is to actually meet him face to face. Do you really need him to produce a biometric ID card before being satisfied that he isn’t ‘Debbie’???
“I don’t break laws. I really don’t see why I would want to.”
In which case, why do you want to be branded like a criminal?
“No real slavery isn’t “Merely drudgery”.
I don’t think I really have to expound on this issue.”
Since you clearly have a slave’s mentality I am prepared to bow to your greater knowledge.
“When you go to visit the Samizdata website, you want to actually go to that website and not a spoof or fake right? So the accurate identification of websites via the DNS/ICANN system is allowing you to bypass the difficulties that plague other aspects of modern life.”
Nobody is required to have a website by law and, besides, there can only ever be one Samizdata you foolish man.
“It’ll cut down on all that virtual pr0n in the chat rooms”
How does that work, then?
In short, all the standard, boilerplate, disposable justifications all of which ride on the back of the same old canard that they will make life easier.
It’s bollocks.
Oh god, David, another great fisk!
We have ID cards here, and I don’t see anybody complaining, cos it is just so damn useful when getting services everywhere. The crime factor is misleading; our low crime rates have nothing to do with the cards per se, actually.
Furthermore, I take issue with the statement that governments are hopeless at IT. It’s a sweeping statement that doesn’t jive with my own experience.
Big Brother? Perhaps. Depends on the society in question. Convenience against liberty… hmmm…
We have ID cards here, and I don’t see anybody complaining,
Where be “here”, Wobbly? How long have you had them? Did anybody complain when they were being implemented? Can you be detained by police if you’re stopped without one?
cos it is just so damn useful when getting services everywhere.
What did you do before ID cards?
Ed:
It may be different in the UK but in America you must identify yourself. It’s a mistake, I think, to say that you must provide identification when asked by the police. But you must identify yourself.
Not according to the ACLU: “You can’t be arrested merely for refusing to identify yourself on the street.”
Well, ed, you’re nothing if not irritating.
** Well I’ve done my job then.
1) You can halt immigration, in an island nation, at the shores and airports – if you have the will, rather than the intent to change the face of Britain. No need to burden the citizens with ID cards.
** I’ve mentioned that I’m an **American**. Somehow the term “island nation” doesn’t entirely apply to my country.
2) Oh gosh, tracking terrorists! Why would we have to do that if the government hadn’t let them in in the first place? So the government is not our friend.
** America’s problem is Canada and Mexico. Neither country is reliable nor really an ally. Canada in particular loves to allow anyone without any documentation to declare themselves to be a refugee. In which case they are allowed in and then generally allowed to disappear. We’ve already had one serious terrorism incident with a terrorist coming from Canada with a carload of explosives.
Again. I’m an **American**.
3) Controls identity theft. Sure. There is no such thing as false ID. ed – what someone can think up, someone equally smart can equal.
** Sure. And with integrated data services whereby banks and other institutions can verify the person’s ID by checking with a centralized database the ability for illegals and terrorists to move around will be heavily curtailed. Imagine trying to rent a car with a false ID and having that ID checked against a central database.
6) Your worst point. “Oooooh, if I’ve done nothing wrong, I have nothing to be afraid of!” So? If a dog has been a good doggie, it has nothing to fear from its master.
** So what is you point exactly? Are you a dog then? A dog has to obey it’s master. People living in a democracy have this thing called VOTING. Try it. And stop being a dog for God’s sake.
7) Get over the slavery bit. We’ve changed it to serfdom in your honour.
** sure sure sure.
9) You “don’t see where it’s a good thing” to use an alias. So? Who said we have to live by your idea of what is good and what’s bad? Why should a hotel refuse me a room if I pay cash and demand “identification”? I thought cash was identification of the means to pay. If I want to use an alias, I am bloody well free to use one and I won’t be asking for your, or the state’s approval, ed.
** LOL. Many hotels will not accept cash without a credit card. Quite a few won’t accept cash at all. Unless you’re thinking of some real fleabag places of course. But, like I pointed out, people tend to look funny at someone who uses a credit card, with their real identity, and signs in with an alias.
sigh.
ed
The self-ownership issues at the root of this is related to some other issues of course… for example, almost every nation-state in the world limits their claim to a pecuniary interest in people to within their borders, or to activity carried out within those borders. Move abroad and the local tax man loses interest in you. The US State however, almost uniquely, claim a pecuniary interest in anyone who is a US ‘citizen’ (I prefer the more accurate term subject) regardless of where they actually live on the planet.
Don’t believe me? Try moving overseas for a few years and making all your money in some other country… you still have to file tax returns with the IRS and unless the USA has a double taxation agreement with the nation you now live in, the IRS will demand taxes on anything you make over $70,000 per year. You can of course tell them to shove it and there is not a lot they can do about it… however I would not recommend you ever return to the USA. I know several people who have torn up their US passports for exactly that reason and now live elsewhere.
Hope this makes sense as I have just returned home from a Friday evening drink (or two) in the pub…
It seems to me that no matter how many rules, regulations and identity cards are made mandatory only the innocent are really inconvenienced (and pay the cost). The black hats always find a way around these things. Lets do away with all this rubbish and make the one in five who get their daily nourishment sucking the blood out of the rest of us (civil servants) get proper jobs.
It is also true that in many respects we have already gone way beyond the pernicious ID card. One cannot travel anywhere in the UK without being observed by someone using a camera. Mostly these blue spycams are owned and operated by the local council but the police are able to get access to them if they are observing a crime. If they can then MI5 certainly can.
Also quite a number of what we believe are speed cameras are actually correlating information with the PNC (Police National Computer) about our vehicles registration, tax, MOT and insurance status. On a purely routine basis it is impossible that anyone is joining the dots and matching this information with credit card records – there is simply too much data for this – but if one of the security services was to take an interest in one – even erroneously, it would not take them long to know ones life inside out.
Our taxes are paying the salaries of these repulsive people and when there is a real threat to the public through terrorism or such they always seem to have been looking the other way. Lets do away with ALL these damn restrictions.
If immigration was unrestricted and welfare non-existant then immigrants would do what they have always done. Those that really meant it would work and those looking for handouts would not bother coming.
If we stopped our interventionist foreign policy terrorists would really have no excuse. I know this would not stop them all as anyone who is prepared to murder in the name of a religion will probably find some way to justify any barbarity but with less or no tax we could afford to employ some decent guards to shoot those buggers dead dead dead when they turn up.
Oh dear I have started to rant incoherently. Too much claret I expect.
Feasibility
Is it actually feasibile to scan 60m people’s eyes – and with Iris scans my understanding is that people must be scanned correctly and that it takes some time to shoot. This in addition to the possibility of fingerprinting some 60m people.
Storage
At present I understand that the largest iris scan database consists of approximately 30,000 persons’ details. Even with the numbers involved the time it takes to process the information and verify the identity of the subject is well over 5 minutes. I presume that some wonderful database company has invented some amazing new software to deal with 60m+ entries.
Cost
haha, yeah … riiiight “£7 billion to develop”. I look forward to the day we see the Home Secretary (no iris scans for Blunkett I bet!) resigning because of the tenfold cost overrun of his pet controlfreak project.
—
“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”
~ Maggie
Database wise, remember that a sensible ID would have a “number”. So all the database has to do is retrieve one record, by that index number, and check if the retinat print matches or fails.
Doing a global search of “who might this be?” given a retina print but no other ID, that would be a much rarer case, and one in which a one-week delay getting back the answer might not be such a major burden.
I think to call these things ID is to be missing the point. They are, by analogy with “driving licenses”, “living licenses”. You are permitted to get a job, open a bank account, etc, provided you have performed the proper genuflection.
And this permission will be as withdrawable as driving permission. Imaging getting “points” on your ID card, counting up towards the day when you will be thrust out of the “white” economy and left to fall back upon illegal jobs or charity.
The mind boggles. A license to exist? Points added/deducted for good behaviour as a citizen?
Insofar as what Blunkett proposes for our blessed England I feel the regrettable time is drawing near when I shall retire to the Isle of Man, of no speed limits, loose banking practices and a healthy dislike of Westminster dictat …
Gee, I wish I had gotten into this thread sooner. Then I too could irritate you guys like Ed is doing.
ID cards… yes, I like the idea. I want one that is extremely hard to forge and is reliable. I don’t want my identity stolen. I want to be able to identify the guy who shows up at my door to do some work. I want terrorists to have to do more work to operate in my country, and contrary to statements on here, good ID cards significantly increase security. I am tired of the Democrats using illegal aliens to vote in our elections, often multiple times on the same day in different precincts, thanks to “motor voter” laws that require no ID.
How many folks have seen a high security installation that doesn’t require ID cards? Oh, they can be forged easily! Oh yeah? Then why do they do it? Is every security expert in the world stupid? I don’t think so. Why does the US military issue ID cards to all soldiers? I still have my old one (with, of course, it’s expiration date on it).
The pervasiveness of cameras is also a good thing. Having a recording of history should appeal to anyone who is interested in truth. Cameras are dramatically better than witnesses, who frequently cause innocent people to be convicted. Cameras allow reconstruction of events, from accidents to crimes. Cameras record history, and history is better than the lack thereof.
If you think that you need to sneak around secretly,then you are likely either living in a country that already fails to respect the rule of law, or ar a paranoid nut case that also encrypts all email, wears gloves all the time, sends snail mail with black plasting wrapping your letters (I used to play correspondence chess with one of these guys), and wears tin foil hats whenever you are near a police station.
Sure, cameras can be obnoxious. They can catch you cheating on your spouse, making you a blackmail candidate. But in general the only folks who have access to camera data today are the cops, and at least in the US they need to have reasonable suspicion to go around asking everyone for their videotapes! Furthermore, unless the systems are too easy to use and too centralized, the cops will have better things to do than watch innocent people! They are most likely to use the cameras only to reconstruct past events, or to watch for wanted dangerous criminals.
A centralized police camera system would be a bit more dangerous. It would require more controls and some form of citizen supervision (preferably by a team of completely randomly chosen citizens).
But ID cards? Heck, you DON’T need a national ID card if you don’t do anything. It isn’t branded into your skin. But there are many legitimate reasons to be able to identify folks.
Personally, I’d like to have a system where folks could get more than one identity from the government if they wished. Only the police, with probable cause, could use the information that ties these identities together. That way you could some preserve privacy except when it is critical for the government to violate it.
John Moore brings US presuppositions about the limitation of government to the debate–“probable cause”, “citizen supervision”… don’t make us laugh.
But also something else: “Heck, you DON’T need a national ID card if you don’t do anything.” Which I submit is equivalent to the totalitarian assumption so common everywhere in Europe that you ought to need the state’s supervision and approval to do anything.
My assumptions about social life are different. You ought to be able to do what you like, when you like, where you like, without anyone’s permission–unless it imposes on others. You can decide whom to trust in your private business, as suits you. You need not account for your life to every passing official, any more than you have to to me.
It isn’t branded into your skin.
Hey, but wouldn’t it be so much more convenient if it was? No more losing the card and being prevented from getting on with your life. If you have one of those tiny chips implanted in the palm of your hand at birth it could double as an ID card and an electronic purse. With a tattoo on the forehead to prevent identity theft by people stealing your chip. The mark on your forehead and the mark on your hand would have to match.
Some of the pro-ID card commenters are basically saying that Big Brother exists already, it is too late to bother about it and let’s just lie back and enjoy it. Oh dear.
John Moore, imagine how you would feel after having been stopped and searched umpteen times by officials, even though you had done nothing wrong. I just don’t buy your argument that use of such power would not be extremely annoying.
Maybe some of us are already sheep and are happy to be served up on a statist plate. Others think different, thank God.
>Not according to the ACLU: “You can’t be arrested merely for refusing to identify yourself on the street.”
>Posted by Tim Haas at November
Whoops your’re right. You are only required to identify yourself after the arrest. I was basing that post on a case I believed to be one where the person was arrested for not identifying herself. Instead she was arrested and, upon her refusal to identify herself, had additional charges placed against her.
Sorry.
ed
“Except that it offers some hope of controlling the annual problem of illegal immigration.”
The very day ID cards are launched in the UK, perfect forgeries will be available on the streets of Lagos and Karachi.
** Immaterial. The national ID cards will be directly tied to centralized databases that will hold physical identification data involving fingerprints and retinal scans. The equipment for which is becoming cost effective for deployment by the government and businesses.
“Along with the financial burdens of housing, supporting and teaching both the illegal immigrants and their children.”
A problem of having a welfare state not privacy.
** Partly due to a welfare state but also heavily due to the difficulty in indentifying illegal aliens. Even with the federal requirements for all employers to ensure that their workers are fully documented, there are still many illegals at work in the US. A national ID + centralized databases would cut that down a great deal. Along with much heavier penalties of course.
“Except that it offers some hope of controlling or tracking terrorists.”
How? Will Islamofascist nutjobs carry cards bearing the words ‘Terrorist: kindly detain me”?
** Amusing. No. Simply by the fact that they will not be able to acquire a legal ID. Without a legal ID it could easily prove impossible to conduct any daily business whatsoever. The same techniques that can be used to winnow out and arrest illegal aliens can also be used to identify terrorists.
“Except that it offers some hope of controlling identity theft.”
A guaranteed way of turning it from a problem into an epidemic.
** Generally a fisking actually involves a real response, not a sound bite. Frankly if this is the best you can do then responding at all to you is a complete waste of time. Next time if all you do is one line responses, I’ll just ignore you.
** How could a national ID turn into an epidemic exactly? Especially since it already is an epidemic. If you must present and ID that will be integrated with a centralized database that also uses either fingerprint or retinal scans that would drastically reduce fraud. If you were engaged in identity theft and went to purchase a car, wouldn’t you have to discover a means to bypass the retinal scan? So how would you accomplish that? Replace your eyeballs?
Fact is that a national ID would heavily impede the massive amounts of fraud going on with identity theft. If you really disagree then spell it out in painful detail.
“In the case of Britain I’d say that Guiness has more symbolism than a national ID card.”
Eh?
** A pithy one sentence statement in your honour.
“Another basic point would be that it would allow for identification across the internet.”
How? And anything that can be made can be forged.
** It’s called encryption. Another aspect is also called “Digital ID”. Again with a centralized database as a means of confirmation. Possibly through the use of SSL/SOAP webservices as a distributed system.
“I think that anyone here spent time in an online chat room with a “Debbie” and then later found out it was this short, hairy bald 48 year old guy would be very much in favor of a national ID card. :)”
The only way to find out if shorty, baldy man has been teasing with you is to actually meet him face to face. Do you really need him to produce a biometric ID card before being satisfied that he isn’t ‘Debbie’???
** I’d rather be satisfied that “Debbie” wasn’t a short bald guy in the first place. Perhaps I’m different in that way.
“I don’t break laws. I really don’t see why I would want to.”
In which case, why do you want to be branded like a criminal?
** In what way is a national ID criminal? I’ve had identification since I was a child. Naturalization papers, licenses, permits, military ID cards and security clearances. Explain why a secure national form of idenfication indicates criminality. Frankly there simply isn’t anything behind your statement. There isn’t a single developed nation on the planet that doesn’t employ identification extensively. The only difference between a national ID and the current system is that a national ID would involve databases and verification means.
“No real slavery isn’t “Merely drudgery”.
I don’t think I really have to expound on this issue.”
Since you clearly have a slave’s mentality I am prepared to bow to your greater knowledge.
** Thank you for that truly articulate insult. I’m sure that I will remember it for the rest of this paragraph. I hope at some point to be as important as you with all those wonderfully pithy statements that so eloquently redefine the world in such dramatic ways.
“When you go to visit the Samizdata website, you want to actually go to that website and not a spoof or fake right? So the accurate identification of websites via the DNS/ICANN system is allowing you to bypass the difficulties that plague other aspects of modern life.”
Nobody is required to have a website by law and, besides, there can only ever be one Samizdata you foolish man.
** Thank you for completely ignoring the actual point of my statement in favor of a meaningless and nosensical reply with no content value whatsoever. I will treasure it for the rest of this sentence and I hope it will be etched, nay bronzed even, into the minds of anyone who is so wretched as to have read it.
“It’ll cut down on all that virtual pr0n in the chat rooms”
How does that work, then?
** By inducing all sorts of people into reading your incredibly sexy comments. You are a seriously joy-joy person who brings great happiness to the colons of the world. I know, as I sit here typing, that you bring a certain feeling into my colon.
In short, all the standard, boilerplate, disposable justifications all of which ride on the back of the same old canard that they will make life easier.
It’s bollocks.
Posted by David Carr at November 14, 2003 07:21 PM
** Thank you David Carr. I’ll treasure this moment for as long as I view this comment window. I know I speak for everyone that you have enhanced this discussion to the very realm of the Heavens above. I cannot but speak my mind of the fullness of my intestinal tract filled, as it were, with the stuff of greatness implict, and explicit, in your wisdom.
Let the colons of the world expand to their limits with the burgeoning mass of devotion to your writing. Let the stomachs of the Gods themselves regurgitate the effulvium of thought embodied throughout your ideas.
I would continue but I must go and contemplate, as best this mortal mind may, your spirit which, as all learned men may know, is the very existence of the Yak Buttock of all Knowledge.
ed