I was just thinking up a few scenarios in answer to the assertion that “a law abiding person has nothing to fear from ID cards, in-car tracking systems or surveillance cameras”. These are some wholly or mostly law-abiding persons who do have something to fear:
- A person who has unpopular political beliefs of left or right that might lose them their job or promotion.
- A person who is homosexual but their family does not know.
- A teenage girl secretly visiting her boyfriend. He is of a different race to her family, and they have forbidden her to see him.
- A man who is seeking to change his job needs to attend interviews with other companies. He doesn’t want his present employer to know for fear that if the interviews don’t work out he might end up worse off than before, having lost the confidence of his boss.
- A woman scouting out places to go to get away from her violent partner.
- Someone going to Alcoholics Anonymous or drugs rehabilitation sessions.
- Someone going to church, synagogue or mosque who fears the scorn of their secular friends, colleagues or family.
- Someone attending classes of religious instruction prior to converting to another religion who fears the vengeance of their family if their apostasy becomes known.
- A son or daughter visiting an estranged parent without the knowledge of the parent they live with.
- An ex-criminal seeking to go straight who must meet his probation officer or register with the police.
- An adulterer. (I think adultery is very wrong, but I don’t want the government involved in exposing it – besides the intrinsic nastiness of state intervention in such matters, you can bet they would expose the adulteries of their opponents and pass over the adulteries of their friends.)
That example takes us to a more general point: there are so many laws that nearly all of us are breaking some of them all the time. This fact gives local and national authorities enormous scope for quiet blackmail. You think it’s unlikely that they would be so wicked? Well, the blackmailers themselves might scarcely see it as blackmail. Imagine this scenario: they get to know that X, an irritating serial complainer, writer of letters to the editor, and general thorn in the side of several local councillors, is attending an adult education class for more than the number of hours permitted to an unemployed person who is meant to be actively seeking work. How satisfactory to take action against this pest! Meanwhile Y, who sat next to X in the class and is equally unemployed and equally breaking the rules (or equally unaware of them), is ignored because he is not a troublemaker.
First they came for the libertarians….
Hear, hear.
It’s not only blackmail but plain bullying we have to fear. “The authorities” are embodied in real, fallible people, not paragons of impartiality. And at least some of those who choose to take up official power do so because they enjoy the exercise of power, and want to dominate, humiliate and harrass others.
Further, the system’s not going to be incorruptible. Parts of it will fall under the sway of those using it for private gain, just as gangsters and freelance investigators currently have informal access to the NCIS computer by blackmail, bribery, and social engineering, they will get into other systems too.
If it wasn’t such an important matter, it would be almost hilarious that all those lefties who in the 1980s foamed at the mouth at the use of Internal Passports, in South Africa, should now be Ministers in the British government proclaiming the virtues of exactly the same concept over here. Hypocrisy? In bucketloads.
What’s even worse is that all the “caring, sharing” lefties who currently occupy Whitehall, have probably all read Mr Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, and some of them may even label themselves as devotees of the Wigan Pier One. Perhaps we should get a braille copy to Mr Blunkett, if he hasn’t read it himself.
Yet what do we hear from this rotten Labour Cabinet, in opposition to Mr Blunkett? It’s cost; it’s whether it will cost votes, it’s what will be cut if it’s implemented. Nothing about principle, nothing about rights, nothing about liberty.
A plague on them all. And on every single “caring, sharing” Guardian reader, who in any way supports these disgusting proposals.
Andy Duncan writes:
“If it wasn’t such an important matter, it would be almost hilarious that all those lefties who in the 1980s foamed at the mouth at the use of Internal Passports, in South Africa, should now be Ministers in the British government proclaiming the virtues of exactly the same concept over here.”
Quite so. People forget (and are rarely reminded) that we have been here before, during WWII when the infamous refrain ‘show me your papers’ was routinely used by every tuppeny-halfpenny jobsworth in the land, until one brave soul took the government to court and won.
Of course, this was back in the days when English Common Law was still robust and we didn’t suffer from judges hand-picked to subvert it.
Meanwhile, it is not just your papers they want to check. It is your whereabouts too. Seemingly without clear legal authority. See here
, for example.
Andy Duncan:
“A plague on them all. And on every single “caring, sharing” Guardian reader, who in any way supports these disgusting proposals.”
you’re barking up the wrong tree… the Guardian’s had several opinion pieces from people quite alarmed by the whole ID card idea. I’m not suggesting *no* guardian readers support the concept, but I think you’d be better served looking towards the Mail & the Sun for your ‘enemies’ on this particular front. I’d say support for the idea of ID cards is spread across the political spectrum, & to call it “leftist” is fooling yourself.
A_t is right on this. If the public end up swallowing ID cards it is because the ground has been prepared by all these ridiculous scare stories about asylum seekers and paedophiles continuously running in the tabloid press. It is these silly people who whip up moral panics who are a danger to liberty.
A_t writes:
I think you’d be better served looking towards the Mail & the Sun for your ‘enemies’ on this particular front.
At least these people aren’t being hypocrites. Many paternalist state-loving Daily Hate-Mail or Sun-reading Tories have probably always supported internal passports (and have hated anyone who doesn’t wear a blazer and tie, 24×7, or drive a white van).
So just as I can have a beer with a communist, because at least he or she is honest about their Stalinist politics, I can have a beer with a right-wing conservative statist who thinks ID cards are a great idea, because it is something they believe from first principle, that the state is good, and should be used as a blunt instrument to make people conform to what the state defines as good.
What I cannot stomach are these support-Cuba, badge-wearing, Guardian-reading, Independent-reading self-deceiving liars, hypocrites, fraudsters, and welfare-state socialists, who spent 20 years opposing ID cards in Chile, South Africa, Israel, and wherever else you care to mention, and then decided to think it was a GREAT idea for Britain, because the cretinous David Blunkett told them so.
May all these rancid hypocrites, especially those in the New Labour Cabinet, rot in hell.
Andy Duncan writes: “fraudsters ”
May I make a plea for the rehabilitation of that fine old English word ‘fraud’?
I’ve no idea why the colonials decided to add the ‘ster’ on the end. “That man is a fraud” is all that’s needed.
Sadly, I see even the Telegraph has given ground on this one.
Just a thought…
A_t and Paul Coulam are both quite right. ID cards are not a pet leftist project. They have as much (if not more) support in the centre and on the authoritarian right. It is an essentially corporatist, European idea.
But Andy Duncan is also right. From a pig expect nothing but a grunt. But what is so truly galling is the all-of-a-sudden acquiescence (or defeaning silence) of so many people who spent the 60’s and 70’s marching and agitating for ‘freedom’ and (allegedly) against ‘fascism’.
What I cannot stomach are these support-Cuba, badge-wearing, Guardian-reading, Independent-reading self-deceiving liars, hypocrites, fraudsters, and welfare-state socialists, who spent 20 years opposing ID cards in Chile, South Africa, Israel, and wherever else you care to mention, and then decided to think it was a GREAT idea for Britain, because the cretinous David Blunkett told them so.
May all these rancid hypocrites, especially those in the New Labour Cabinet, rot in hell.
Well said.
At least no one here believes that old authoritarian line “you have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide.” What they don’t realise is that everyone has something they way to hide from the government and every one else. If we didn’t why would we have something called a “private life”. Its not called a “private from everyone but the government life now is it?
Private life…. Hm. Not for the best part of a century. Not since before DORA and compulsory passports. It’s just the last of it is disappearing over the horizon. I have a Dyson, but I still say that I “hoover” the carpet.
Meaning-slippage is our enemy’s friend.
I like my privacy, but find John Brunner’s disturbing vision in Shockwave Rider of a world where everyone could know everything quite a bit less frightening than the one where the state and its friends can know everything. The former seems an encouragement to more tolerance; the latter an opportunity for less.
The urge to rule and control is not new. What is new is the technology that enables far more surveilance than before. The technology will not go away, and the efforts to block it don’t have much of a chance.
For example: Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems are already in use in Israel, used for collecting road tolls. People can be tracked also without the hated ID cards – they do not really matter.
We must adapt, maybe try to invent technological countermeasures. The anonymity of the past is gone forever.
“…Guardian-reading, Independent-reading self-deceiving liars, hypocrites, fraudsters, and welfare-state socialists, who spent 20 years opposing ID cards in Chile, South Africa, Israel, and wherever else you care to mention, and then decided to think it was a GREAT idea for Britain, because the cretinous David Blunkett told them so.”
“…what is galling is the all-of-a-sudden acquiescence (or defeaning silence) of so many people who spent the 60’s and 70’s marching and agitating for ‘freedom’ and (allegedly) against ‘fascism’. ”
oh come come…. I don’t want to see ID cards introduced in this country, but I don’t think the ID cards in themselves were really the central issue in the SA etc. demos; it was the dodgy treatment of people in those countries;the ID cards were being used as a tool to further that oppression. Plenty of European countries have ID card schemes, & have managed not to particularly oppress their populations. I personally think they’re dangerous because they could *ease* the passage towards greater totalitarianism if we got a government that was so inclined, but to suggest that their introduction in the UK is analogous to prior situations in Chile or South Africa is grossly exaggerating the current threat, & does a great disservice to those who have lived under genuinely repressive governments.
I’ll happily go along with you on the “anyone who follows david blunkett is a fucking idiot” front tho’ 🙂 anytime.
In many communities in the States a man using his car to solicit prostitution runs the risk of 1) having his car impounded for its use in the commission of a crime but worse and more in line with your concerns: 2) the information taken from is liscence plate (even if he is not caught) being used to ascertain who he is and where he lives and having his personal information published in the local newspapers (sometimes including his phone number) with a notice that he was witnessed soliciting……
There’s also a problem for all the goody goody types who aren’t violating any of the ever expanding set of rules.
What if the authorities’ analysis of the problem is wrong? It’s been known to happen. We can get the following scenario:
1. Problem becomes apparent.
2. Problem incorrectly diagnosed or solution doesn’t work.
3. Problem remains — affecting even the totally innocent.
4. Authorities attack the problem again, still not understanding what’s going on or with another ineffective solution. Society becomes even less free.
5. Eventually authority starts attacking goody goody people in attempt to “solve problem.” After all, it couldn’t be that authority is wrong, could it?
We wind up with a situation where the initial problem persists and now authority has made life worse for everyone.
This is just one reason why I favor liberal democratic societies. Such societies are not perfect, but they seem to do better at problem solving than authoritarian ones. They also tend not to make life worse for all but those with power.
A_T informs us: “Plenty of European countries have ID card schemes, & have managed not to particularly oppress their populations.”
I seem to recall the widespread abuse by both the Soviets and the Germans of ID cards, as a key element of oppressing their populations. I’m sure the Spanish did the same under Franco. God only knows how ID cards were used to further ethnic cleansing during the recent unpleasantness in the Balkans.
Just because nobody has been oppressed in the last few months doesn’t mean that it can’t happen again.
On the one hand, you have to weigh the proven potential of ID cards as a tool of oppression. On the other hand, you have to weigh their utility in solving genuine societal problems. So far, I am not convinced that the latter case has been made, leaving their proven potential for abuse as a very worrying, and decisive, negative.
There is one simple phrase which I always reach for in this debate:
Intent matters.
Take the automatic license plate identification technology. What is the real difference between having a policeman or a civilian witness write down your license number and a machine scan it? Nothing. The intent is the same, the results are the same. If you object to these machines, what you really object to is the idea that every car should have a license plate, and you should say so. Same with speed cameras. If you’re speeding, you’re breaking the law. I see no significant difference between being caught by an automatic system and being caught by a policeman. If you object to speed cameras, what you really object to is speed limits, and you should say so.
The problem with ID cards, CCTV, and all the rest of it is not the technology. ID cards are just a symptom of the problem. The problem is the intentions of the government (or, of course, the possible intentions of a hypothetical future government). Win the battle against ID cards, and those intentions will still exist, and will manifest themselves in other schemes.
So I say fight the government on a different front. What we need is an official and constitutional limit to state power, such as a bill of rights. Once we have a bill of rights, we can let the government introduce ID cards, safe(ish) in the knowledge that they’ll never be allowed to use them for anything.
Squander Two wrote: “What we need is an official and constitutional limit to state power, such as a bill of rights. Once we have a bill of rights, we can let the government introduce ID cards, safe(ish) in the knowledge that they’ll never be allowed to use them for anything.”
We already have a bill of rights in England, albeit a very old one. It establishes such rights as the right to bear arms in self defence.
When the state wishes to bypass such safeguards, they are easily swept aside.
Which is why I said that what we need is a constitutional limit to state power. What we have at the moment is a sort of vague gentlemen’s agreement.
The obvious problems with ID cards are the same ones that exist with credit cards and cash cards,they will be taken at face value by official dom.There will be continual pressure by government to add more and more information,for all kinds of reasons of safetyand security etc.Eventually an individuals whole life will be encoded on the card ,then someone will steal it.Wrongdoers will have the best IDs money can buy.
Carrying an ID card would have to be compulsory otherwise all a miscreant would have to say is “Sorry officer Iv’e’ left it at home”and of course the reply would be “Don’t do it again my lad run along home” or even “You must present it at a Police station within such and such a time”Obviously our miscreant is going to “have it away on his toes”.So the bureaucratic offence of not carrying a card will result.
Another factor is the ignorance,stupidty and literal mindedness of bureaucrats which is boundless.Does anyone trust these people to interpret correctly the information they would have access to?
It seems to me there’s someone on here who’s convinced it’s some sort of leftist conspiracy. Well, I’m a leftist, but the idea of compulsory ID cards horrifies me in all sorts of ways. I agree with those who say this goes beyond the normal left/right split to a question of general liberty, which I suppose means I’m lining up with a few right-wing libertarians who are against the card. So be it.
In practical terms, apart from opposing it at source, what I think we need when it eventually does come in (I think it’s now near inevitable) is a well co-ordinated campaign of refusal. If millions don’t get them and let them know they’re not going to get them, how the hell are they going to cope?
What is the real difference between having a policeman or a civilian witness write down your license number and a machine scan it?
The automated collection and archiving of personal data permits ‘fishing expeditions’ by persons who have access to that collected data. The policeman who writes down that information does so in response to a single incident s/he has witnessed. But the archive of data collected automatically can be searched and cross referenced.
For example:
— Mr A drives his car past an automated number plate recognition camera in london. The location of his car is recorded along with date and time.
— A crime is committed nearby at approximately the same time.
— The number plate database is searched and Mr A is arrested and questioned on suspicion of committing the crime.
This scenario could not occur unless the data was recorded automatically. It is the inferential data from these types of fishing expeditions which could be used to coerce or blackmail individuals, as previously discussed.
I live in Brazil. We have a compulsory ID card system. The card includes `biometrics` – a photo and fingerprints. By law a person is obliged to carry some kind of ID when in a public place, though not necessarily the state issued ID (for example, a driving permit, or professional ID). You need the ID card for practically everything – opening a bank account, taking employment, obtaining a passport, voting (which is also compulsory!) etc.
The ID card is not secure and is easily tampered with. Brazil just doesn`t have the resources to impose a high tech card. `Ghosting` is possible since in order to obtain an ID card, the only document required in support is a birth certificate. Once a ghost ID has been obtained, it is an easy process to accumulate other documents in the ghost name leading, of course, to a passport and a ghost identity in a foreign country – for example a Home Office issued Identity Card!!
I imagine that there are many countries around the world where it is possible to obtain a legitimate passport by ghosting. Once a person has such a passport, the purpose in having a UK ID card is defeated. `Terrorists`, criminals etc will enter the UK on the ghost documents, acquire the UK ID card and then get to work. Their true identities hidden from the UK authorities.
Blunkett`s scheme is flawed. The very people it pretends to exclude will go about their business under a ghost identity.
The automated collection and archiving of personal data permits ‘fishing expeditions’ by persons who have access to that collected data. The policeman who writes down that information does so in response to a single incident s/he has witnessed. But the archive of data collected automatically can be searched and cross referenced.”
And what makes you think that the info gathered by the policeman isnt archived for later use? It’s not like they toss any info they collect in the trash at the end of the day.
ID cards are nothing less than a means by which the government can increase its grip on the population – a kind of internal passport of the kind formerly used in South Africa under apartheid and in the former Soviet Union.
Blunkett’s claim that they will not be compulsory has to be taken with a truck-load of salt. While he has said the question of compulsion will be reviewed later, it is clear that the intention of the ID cards is to make daily life extremely inconvenient without them, so that people will find that it is better to (“voluntarily”) carry them at all times anyway – what the Earl of Selborne of the Royal Society called compulsion by default. Blunkett’s claim that the ID card will – at least for the present – be voluntary is at best cynical and at worst hypocritical.
It is also entirely likely that Blunkett is under pressure from the US to introduce ID cards in the UK in order to make it easier for the US to introduce ID cards over there. Only time will tell as to whether that is correct, but it does seem plausible.
Bob
Regardless of whether the ID card is compulsory to carry, if the biometric identifier can be scanned by (for example) the police, your biometric ID will act as the index to the ID card database.
I.E. YOU are the ID card!!
Interestingly, some proponents of ID cards in the United Kingdom seem to pretend that compulsory ID cards are the norm in Europe.
Unless I’m greatly mistaken, ID cards are not mandatory in France, at least (and France restricts the ability of police officers to request identification, although such legal restrictions can be worked around by clever (ab)use of the law).
I wonder of the UK, which pretends to be some kind of cradle of human rights in Europe, can consider enacting compulsory ID cards. (To be fair, the UK is already the European country with the most closed-circuit cameras enabling the government to observe the public, etc.)
My neighbor focused his video surveillance camera on my home and property.
He can watch my children, and knows our schedule. He sees in my home through my large windows. Needless to say we do not allow the kids to play in the front yard. We at least can use the backyard.
He knows when my kids go to school, his automatic zoom and focus can watch them walk down the street.
He claims he is protecting his property,
but the rooftop camera cannot even focus on his own home.
He knows when I have left my home on foot or in my car, and when we return.
I can happen to you.
If I could make a law it would be that surveillance cameras must be stationary cameras that face the owner’s property. There is no law that prevents them from pointing them at you in your home and keeping images of your children forever.
Didnt the innocent have nothing to fear during the Spanish Inquisition?
I think we all know how well that turned out for all involved.
The Spanish Inquisition was indeed about purifictaion,a good point, the fact that it changed from having “materialistic, racial, and political motives, instead of just purification”. Whose to say the governments ultimately will not abuse the power given to them? As others have mentioned, it is the ability to weigh the negatives against the positives that gives you the answer. Logically do this and you will come to the conclusion that really, there is no need for our databases to be able to be accessed by third parties…its none of their business.