Posts by LondonRegger

Identity cards: How Labour lost power in a case of mistaken ID

Re: Could someone please explain me this British anti-ID obsession?

"Travel for London tracks and logs our every movement"

Of course I meant *Transport* for London

" sticking your hand in the sand."

and *head* in the sand ...

Re: Could someone please explain me this British anti-ID obsession?

@Intractable Potsherd,

the Dutch example you make is utterly, utterly irrelevant. The Dutch central records helped the Nazis identify many Jews. True. But, even if you are worried about something similar happening in the UK in the 21st century, well, ID cards would not store any sensitive information like race, religion or political affiliations.

There are certain pieces of information which simply MUST be stored (tax records, birth certificates, DVLA records, etc); if a V-for-Vendetta-like dictatorship were to come to power in the UK and wanted to target specific minorities, it would have an excellent chance of doing so by relying on these existing records and, for example, make very educated guesses on people's origins and backgrounds by looking at their names. It doesn't take a genius, for example, to come up with ways to determine if a surname is likely to be Irish/Italian/German/African/Hispanic etc. Of course every instance of data collection lends itself to potential abuses. I'm just saying that ID cards would not result in any additional dangers compared to the current situation. And no, the alternative is not to avoid storing that data altogether, as that would result in pure anarchy. Of course if you want to believe that having data scattered across HMRC, the Police, the DVLA etc is such a great defence measure, well, be my guest, but you're deluding yourself.

It is also most irrelevant whether ID cards were historically introduced by oppressive regimes. One must look at the current situation, see through the bull**** and distinguish theory and practice.

The UK formally requires no ID (but de facto does: try getting by without a driving licence or a passport!), but has one of the highest number of CCTVs installed in the world, many transactions are logged (e.g. Travel for London tracks and logs our every movement, when we enter and exit each station etc) and commercial, private, for-profit credit reference agencies have such a detailed access to our sensitive financial information that it would be every dictator's dream.

By contrast, in many other European countries where IDs were historically introduced by oppressive regimes, there are way fewer CCTVs, many more transactions can be done with cash, transportation companies don't monitor citizens' every moves the way TFL or British rail companies do, credit reference agencies do not have such a pervasive presence, etc. I ask you again: which of the two poses a bigger threat to privacy and freedom?

If anti-ID groups were really keen on addressing all the huge threats to privacy currently present in the UK, I could understand it. But when someone focuses only on the (wrongly) perceived potential risks of ID cards, ignoring the many other threats which are real and current in the UK (but no so much in may countries which use the much-despised ID cards), well, that's like sticking your hand in the sand.

Finally, as for tangible benefits, even if you're happy with the current bureaucratic procedures which require super-easy-to-fake banking and utility statements for pretty much anything, you cannot deny that ID cards would be extremely useful when travelling to other European countries, since most European countries require foreigners to carry some form of ID, especially when driving, and driving licences are not accepted for this purpose.

PS I haven't had the pleasure of an answer: do those who oppose ID cards really think that the UK doesn't require identification documents? In which case I'd be delighted to hear an explanation of how they manage to open a bank account, collect a parcel or start a new job without a passport or a driving licence. Or do they think there is something wrong in a system which formally requires no ID but makes life impossible for those who really don't have any?

Re: Could someone please explain me this British anti-ID obsession?

Additionally, having to provide a proof of address historically derives from the lack of ID cards in the UK.

In most countries with ID cards, the bureaucratic procedures which here require different combinations of 'proofs' are easily and quickly dealt with just a single, small, convenient, cheap, easy to carry ID card. Et voila!

The UK is already one of the most surveilled countries on this planet: there are more CCTVs than in any other European countries, credit reference agencies are way more pervasive and know much more sensitive information about us than would ever be stored on an ID card.... yet most people in the country want to delude themselves into thinking: "oh, we're so liberal here, no id is needed", which is complete nonsense because life is almost impossible without a passport or a driving licence! I ask again: how does someone get by without the two, here, how does someone open a bank account, buy alcohol, get a mortgage, start a job etc?

Oh, and by the way, in Italy, a country which made ID cards compulsory and which, by most standards, is way less liberal than the UK, in 99% of the cases you sort out bureaucratic stuff simply with an ID card + self-certifying (yes. you read that right: self-certifying) your address (because it is not compulsory to get a new ID card if you change address). If they find out you lied on the self-certification you're in deep trouble, but otherwise Italians don't have to worry about providing proof of address (which a 5-year old could fake with a PC), trying to understand who would accept what kind of proof, etc. Just an example to point out how having a standardised way to prove who you are can make life easier for all.

Italians Spanish French Portuguese Germans etc don't live in police states and are not constantly asked to present their ID by the authorities. Sure, the police would ask to see your ID if you look or are doing something really dodgy, but how different is that from the stop-and-search (Brixton riots, anyone) in the UK?

Finally, another common delusion in the UK is to think that ID cards would have contributed to some kind of huge Big Brother-like database. Guys, open your eyes, this already exists! The government already knows a hell of a lot about each of us! Do you think data is not cross checked among the DVLA, the tax authorities, the immigration authorities, the councils, etc? It is, and rightly so! Those who apply for naturalisation will be scrutinised against the data held by all such agencies. The police and MI5 do cross-check such data when investigating suspects. Families who lie on where they live just to send their children to a specific schools are caught cross checking this kind of data. Would you rather live in a country where the police don't have access to, say, the DVLA or the council tax records of suspects?

Re: Could someone please explain me this British anti-ID obsession?

@ John Brown

"Now, I suggest that an ID would not have been all that much use in this case, partly down to the ID being in the "wrong" name (just married, remember?) and the need for more than one piece of ID."

If your wife had had an hypothetical ID card, would she not have been able to use: ID card + marriage certificate (which confirms what her maiden and married name are) + bank statement for the bank account she already has?

As for CityLink, which requires at least one photographic ID (http://city-link.force.com/Help/articles/FAQ/Can-I-collect-my-parcel-from-your-depot?retURL=%2FHelp%2Fapex%2FFindAnswers&popup=false&ArticleTitle=Can+I+collect+my+parcel+from+your+depot%3F&channel=Receiving+a+delivery&channelId=a0BD000000DbUwFMAV&selId=a0ID0000005TRBrMAO) , your point brilliantly describes one of the many situations I referred to, in which a photographic ID is de facto compulsory! You have simply confirmed and strengthened the point I already made.

It is utterly wrong to point out that, unlike other countries, the UK requires no compulsory form of ID. In theory it doesn't, in reality it does! In the case of City Link, the only option for someone who doesn't drive is to shell out £ 72.50 + postage to get a passport!

Re: Could someone please explain me this British anti-ID obsession?

@JP19

When I pointed out that I would not have been able to open a bank account, get a mortgage, or start a new job without a passport or driving licence, you said that

"The solution would be for the government not to require you to be identified for those purposes not to make identification easier in a mandatory from which would just allow the government to require you to be identified for a host of new trivial purposes for their not your benefit."

I beg to differ. Do you really think this? Do you really think that being able to start a new job without proving you're eligible to work in the country, or to open a bank account without proving who you are, would benefit anyone? That would not be freedom of anything. It would be pure anarchy!

Imagine hundreds of thousands of mobsters and criminals opening and operating bank accounts in the name of 'John Smith'!

As for how easy it is to fake a utility statement, yes, the bank statement can be verified independently, but how often do you think it does get verified? Not in every (in fact, in very few!) circumstance where a proof of address is required does it then actually get verified!

My point still stands: a modern ID card would provide greater security because it would be much harder to fake.

Re: Could someone please explain me this British anti-ID obsession?

@I ain't Spartacus

I agree that, given austerity, the crisis etc, ID cards are not a pressing need, and the same money could be better invested elsewhere, unless it can be proven that the scheme would be self-funded.

However, you are wrong on the Schengen point: the fact that the UK is not in the Schengen agreement is utterly irrelevant. UK ID cards would still be accepted in other EU countries, just like other EU citizens can use theirs to enter the UK and to prove their identity (e.g. when opening a bank account in the UK). This is because mutual recognition of ID cards follows from EU rules; note that, for these purposes, not being in the eurozone (not using the euro as a currency) or not being in the Schengen area are irrelevant. For example, during the short trials, those who had UK id cards could and did use them to enter the UK and other European countries.

My main point, however, was another: the pervasive need to prove your identity and citizenship with some form of photographic ID means that passports and/or driving licences have become de facto compulsory (more so the passport, since the driving licence doesn't report citizenship). If I'm wrong, then someone please explain to me how someone who was born British can prove it without a passport.

Re: I wonder how much of the opposition matches mine?

Yes, ID cards can be forged, Anything can be forged and nothing is 100% secure. It's not about 100% security, it's about a reasonable balance between cost and security.

Modern ID cards can be forged, but they are much much much harder to forge than the infamous proofs of address which are so relied upon in the UK but not in the Continental European countries which use ID cards. Yes, terrorists and fraudsters could probably forge ID cards, but a 5-year old with a PC can extremely easily forge a bank or utility statement! That's a huge difference!

Could someone please explain me this British anti-ID obsession?

I honestly do not understand the British anti-ID obsession.

The need to prove your identity does arise in countless occasions, from registering with a GP, to opening a bank account, to starting a new job, to buying alcohol or cigarettes, etc…

In fact, in most cases some sort of photographic ID is required; most people tend to use passports or driving licences, but it is not compulsory to hold either. So what do you do if you hold neither a passport nor a driving licence? Mine is not a rhetoric question: I would genuinely like to know. In most situations I have faced I would not have been able to open a bank account, get a mortgage, or start a new job without either; I could have probably made a huge fuss about the fact that holding them isn’t compulsory, but most bureaucracy procedures are such that passports or driving licences are de facto compulsory in the UK, to the extent that holding at least one of the two makes your life indubitably easier. Just to name one, try buying alcohol in a UK supermarket without a passport or a driving licence if you don’t look at least 30!

ID cards would have been a convenient and secure way to prove identity, available to those who don’t want to/can’t drive, and cheaper than a passport for those who don’t need one as they don’t travel overseas.

ID cards are available in most Western countries, but they haven’t resulted in Big Brother police states. In fact, the information held on ID cards is, for the most part, already held across governmental bodies and agencies: the tax authorities, the DVLA (for non-Brits, that’s the entity issuing driving licences), the registrar offices etc.

Those who are worried about Big Brother implications should be more concerned about things like mobile apps tracking all our activities on smartphones, or the pervasive (way more so in the UK than in most Continental European countries with ID cards) nature of credit reference agencies, i.e. of private companies which have extremely detailed information on our finances, the kind of information and the kind of detail which would be every dictator’s dream.

Additionally, relying more on ID cards and less on proofs of address would increase security and decrease frauds: a 5-year old with a PC could fake a banking statement and print it on A4 paper, whereas faking a modern ID card is much harder (not impossible, nothing is impossible, but much harder yes).

Finally, ID cards would be extremely convenient when travelling to other EU countries: those who don’t need to travel outside of the EU wouldn’t need to get a passport, which is much more expensive; additionally, ID cards are easier to carry (and harder to lose, as they fit in a wallet) in all those situations, especially abroad, when British citizens are supposedly required to carry a passport: from proving your identity when paying with a credit card in Spain to driving in most of Continental Europe. In fact, in these cases driving licences alone are not accepted, and in many European countries a British tourist driving without carrying his British passport with him could be fined.

Re: I wonder how much of the opposition matches mine?

The State has to prove that you're not? I beg to differ.

Do you think it would be better and fairer if benefit claimants (just to name one) didn't have to prove they are who they say they are?

Re: If all they wanted was a usable ID card,

Provisional licences are not quite the same thing as an ID card. You cannot, or at least shouldn't be able to, get one if you don't meet the requirements for driving (e.g. if you have some kind of medical condition preventing you from driving).

In the USA, instead, the equivalents of our DVLA issues a kind of ID card to people who don't have a driving licence; of course you can get one of these kind-of-ID-cards even if you have a condition which prevents you from driving.

Re: I wonder how much of the opposition matches mine?

So would you be OK with the German system where, if I understand correctly, ID cards are issued but there is no centralised database which stores all the details?

My point is that most, if not all, the information on ID cards is already held by other governmental bodies (tax authorities, DVLA etc), and for good reasons: the DVLA must know where you live if you are involved in an accident, HMRC must know how much your employer paid you to work out if you have paid enough tax, etc.

How would the information on ID cards be any different?

Also, what exactly do you mean by the Government tracking the use of the ID card?

Re: I wonder how much of the opposition matches mine?

Well, holding at least a passport or a driving licence has become almost required (not by law, but de facto). If you hold neither your life will be way, way more difficult, from banal things like buying alcohol to more important stuff, like proving to a new employer that you are British and therefore entitled to work here.

About that, how would someone who was born British (not naturalised nor registered British) prove his citizenship, and therefore his right to work, to a new employer if he doesn't have a passport? Birth certificates do not report citizenship.

Oh, finally, those who are British are so because they meet the requirements of the British Nationality Act; being born in the country is not, by itself, sufficient: one of your parents must be British or legally settled (in summary; the details are on the UK Border Agency website). So the child of a foreigner who has been in the country for less than 5 years, for example, is not born British.