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]
|
The press likes to present itself as an advocate of people’s freedoms; certainly vis a vis the state, the Fourth Estate proports to be the people’s friend. But many of the state’s urges to control and dominate it’s citizenry strikes a chord with elements of the media, and this editorial from the Sydney Morning Herald is remarkable. The remarkable feature is that ID Cards have not actually been on the government agenda in Australia. The effect of this article is to actually put ID cards on the public agenda, rather then respond to a government initiative.
For all the repudiation of Big Brother that defeat of the Australia Card supposedly symbolised, Australians do not know the extent of state surveillance of their everyday lives today. Surveillance of their financial arrangements is more exact and accessible than ever before. In the vacuum since the 1987 debate on the merits and demerits of a compulsory ID system, we are not to know whether Australian sentiment has changed. It is likely though that we will soon get the chance to find out.
What is extraordinary is that the SMH, a supposedly liberal minded journal, seems determined to put ID cards on the agenda. It is true that the editorial did not advocate an ID card system, but nor did it condemn it. An extraordinary state of affairs.
The redoubtable Dissident Frogman has created a desktop image that spells out what a lot of us really think about the issue of mandatory National ID Cards
click for larger image
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.
Big Blunkett’s scheme to force compulsory national Identity Cards on innocent British citizens is facing problems from Scotland.
Blunkett has stated that one of the keys to his plan is that the cards will be necessary to access local services such as health and education. However since devolution the Scottish Executive has responsibility for these in Scotland.
Today’s papers report that the Scottish Executive will not require ID Cards for access to services they control.
Scotland’s First Minister Jack McConnell is reported as saying that he was
…opposed to the use of compulsory identity cards for services that come under devolved responsibilities in Scotland
Cross-posted from The Chestnut Tree Cafe
Mark Littlewood, Liberty’s Campaign Director responds:
We need to guard against ID cards being introduced by stealth. Whilst we warmly welcome the Cabinet’s decision to put off a decision on making the cards compulsory, a fudged and muddled compromise is no way to proceed. All the evidence from other European countries suggests that ID cards are expensive, ineffective and damage community relations. In Britain, opinion polls show that several million adults would refuse point blank to carry one. The government should think very carefully before spending billions of pounds on a scheme that could ignite such public outrage. Tackling fraud, combatting terrorism and reducing crime require detailed and intricate policy solutions. ID cards are no answer at all. They represent a real threat to our civil liberties and our personal privacy. There is no obvious upside.
The Guardian has an inspiring leader yesterday about identity cards and David Blunkett’s approach:
Yesterday’s performance by Mr Blunkett was equally bad. He fudged on the huge costs, referring to only the first three years in which double-digit millions will be spent, when the 10-year bill has been put as high as £3bn. He exhibited a worrying faith in the foolproof nature of the new biometric technology – a faith which is not shared by financial service organisations. They have decided against biometric use for payment applications due to the rate of false positives and false negatives among other reasons. Here is an issue needing close scrutiny. True to his tradition, there was little concern from Mr Blunkett for civil liberties or the effects on community relations. Only a year ago ministers were saying ID cards were not needed to combat terrorism. Now it is included, along with illegal working, when the police have said there would only be limited effects. The ball is now in parliament’s court: that is the proper place to decide the balance between rights and security.
Some numbers surrounding the issue of identity cards from Telegraph:
From 2007, people renewing passports would be issued with an ID card and would have to pay £77 at current prices. At present, passports cost £42.
Identity cards may also be combined with driving licences at a cost of £73 instead of £38.
The cards on their own would cost £35, but 16-year-olds would receive them free. The elderly and people on low incomes would pay £10.
The charge would cover the cost of biometric identifiers, such as iris prints, fingerprints or facial recognition, taken from everyone wanting to travel abroad or to drive.
More than 40 million Britons have a passport and about 35 million hold a driving licence. As each comes up for renewal the personal details would be entered on a national identity register and the new document combined with an ID card.
The £3 billion scheme would also cover 4.5 million foreign nationals resident in Britain.
Once about 80 per cent of the population has the cards, a decision would be taken making it compulsory to produce the document to access public services such as the NHS, or to get a job or claim benefits.
The Telegraph’s leading editorial is about ID cards. It sums up David Blunkett’s ‘sneaky’ strategy to force them onto the British populace.
So David Blunkett has come up with an ingenious compromise. He proposes to introduce an elaborate ID card scheme, but without making it compulsory in the first phase. A National Identity Register will record biometric details of the population. Thousands of machines will be installed to read the new ID cards, paid for by employers, the NHS and whoever else wants them. Individuals will also have to pay when they apply for new passports or driving licences. Mr Blunkett apparently hopes that people will hardly notice the £3 billion cost, at least as long as the scheme remains voluntary and is phased in over a decade or more.
What is the point of inserting a “draft Bill” into the Queen’s Speech? What is the point of an ID card that is not compulsory? If America and the European Union are requiring biometric passports, what is the point of confusing that technical problem with the highly political issue of ID cards? Why should a government that has hitherto ignored civil liberties now respect them in the case of ID cards?
Quite.
More RFID coverage in the Chicago Sun-Times:
RFID chips could make your daily life easier, but they also could let anyone with a scanning device know what kind of underwear you have on and how much money is in your wallet
But these same super-small computer chips might also, for the convenience of retailers, be tucked into every shirt you wear, every book you buy and even every dollar bill you put in your wallet – and that could inadvertently create a profound threat to your personal privacy. A clever snoop, armed with a scanner that can read the radio signals coming from the microchips, could size you up in an instant while just strolling past you on the street.
Spooky. (Actually it sounds rather fun. Sorry. Sorry.)
I’m to be on Talk Sport Radio tonight at 10.30pm, talking about ID cards, unless something bigger happens between now and then and they cancel. I’ll do my best, which probably wouldn’t be as good as some of the other luminaries here. Or here and here.
I’ll probably only be on for a minute or two, but it’s a stimulus to educate myself. I’ll try to strengthen my grip on the subject by working my way down this lot.
I have received the official document produced by the Home Office and presented to the Parliament this month, outlining the stages of the plan to introduce identity card in Britain. It is called Identity Cards The Next Steps.
You will find a permanent link to the document (pdf) on the right in the links section.
Anyone who thought recent events meant that the campaign against ID Cards had been won should think again. Big Blunkett has just made a statement in the House and made it quite clear that he still intends to force compulsory National Identity Cards on innocent British citizens.
Blunkett discussed a timetable for introducing compulsory ID Cards. He left no doubt about compulsion, beginning his speech with the words:
The Government has decided to begin the process of building a base for a national compulsory identity card scheme.
His plan is to proceed in two phases. The first phase will be the introduction of biometrics through renewal of passports and driving licence. As soon as the database is available foreigners wishing to stay in the country would be issued with an ID Card and there would be a ‘voluntary’ scheme for British those few citizens without a driving license or passport.
The second phase will be compulsion.
Blunkett mentioned civil liberties only once, blithely stating that they would be safeguarded without addressing the issues. As usual, when answering questions he descended into personal abuse to cover his lack of intellectual rigour. Big Blunkett remains as much a threat as ever and must be stopped.
Cross-posted from The Chestnut Tree Cafe
|
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.
|
