Re-posted from archive of infinite ideas machine 2004:
Check out the UK Department of Social Scrutiny’s National ID Application Form.
I particularly liked:
Do you have a partner?
YES: Please send us some of their skin
NO: Please tell us about your pathological
inability to trust others on a seperate sheet
Parts 2, 3 and 4 also available:
About your ethical standpoint.
About your Majesty, Ma’am – for the Royal family!
Thanks to Adam for the pointer 😉
Re-posted from archive of infinite ideas machine 2004:
 |
 |
 |
|
Guess who’s joined the NO2ID campaign?
Artwork available on request, as before – you’ll need to provide a photo though…
Re-posted from archive of infinite ideas machine 2004:
The Home Affairs Select Committee was hearing evidence on Identity Cards again this afternoon – the second time around for witnesses previously called on 3rd February, i.e. JUSTICE & The Law Society, Liberty & Privacy International and Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, and his Assistant, Jonathan Bamford. All being well, the uncorrected transcript will be made available within a couple of days as before.
Meanwhile, however, BBC NEWS reports the Watchdog’s ‘alarm’ over ID cards:
Richard Thomas said he had initially greeted the plans with “healthy scepticism” but the details had changed his view to “increasing alarm”.
He described the proposed scheme as “unprecedented” in international terms, and “was worried the British plans were more comprehensive and ambitious than any other scheme in the world.” Predictably, Blunkett’s spokespeople accused Thomas of “grandstanding” – but it is encouraging to hear some sense being spoken (and reported) about the Home Office proposals.
Mr Thomas told the MPs: “This is beginning to represent a really significant sea change in the relationship between state and every individual in this country.”
It was now clear the scheme was not just about identity cards but about a national identity register, he said.
“It is not just about citizens having a piece of plastic to identify themselves. It’s about the amount, the nature of the information held about every citizen and how that’s going to be used in a wide range of activities.”
Of course, the Home Office insist they are going to press ahead – quoting their “much wider responsibility to balance civil liberties* with ensuring our security against terrorism, immigration fraud and organised crime.”
But hang on – I thought that Blunkett had already acknowledged that ID cards can’t prevent terrorism [TheyWorkForYou.com really works!] or illegal immigration & working? And is he now trying to substitute ‘organised crime’ for ‘identity fraud’ – given the obvious flakiness of the Home Office’s quoted estimates?
“In 2002 the Cabinet Office produced an interesting document following from a study entitled ‘Identity Fraud: A Study’. Roger Smith, JUSTICE, argues that this report is much more thoughtful and sceptical in relation to identity cards. It asserts that £1.3 billion is lost due to identity fraud. However, when you analyse the data closely, it dissolves. Customs is worth £250 million loss on the basis of total MTIC fraud between £1.7million – £2.6 billion with a midpoint of £2.15 billion, we can assume that identity fraud is 10% of this figure.” – from The Law Society meeting on 22/3/04, ‘Identity Cards: Benefit Or Burden?’
*I thought there weren’t supposed to be any “civil liberties objection[s] to [ID cards] in the vast majority of quarters” – according to the Prime Minister anyway?
And if this wasn’t enough bad news for the beleaguered scheme, in their recent representation to HASC the British Computer Society – as reported by Computer Weekly – warns of their concerns about national ID cards:
“The risk of failure is significantly increased because there does not seem to be any firm and fixed statement of what the system is meant to achieve, what success or failure criteria are imposed and what scope limitations have been imposed.”
i.e. if the Government can’t properly (or even consistently!) state the aims, intentions and limits of their ID card & NIR system, how the hell do they propose to deliver it? BCS also raise a number of practical flaws – e.g. gathering biometrics from the disabled, dangers of data inaccuracy – and logical vulnerabilities of the scheme, e.g. registering people’s identities at 16, rather than at birth.
It certainly begins to look like some of these objections might have teeth!
Re-posted from archive of infinite ideas machine 2004:
There are a couple of ‘classic’ quotes in today’s Scotsman’s article, Identity crisis as ID trial gets brush off:
Professor Alan Marshall, a specialist in human rights based at the University of Strathclyde, claimed the pilot scheme was intended to “soften up” the public to the concept of ID cards. He said: “What this shows, is there is no overwhelming public appetite for, or recognition of, ID cards as being high on the list of tools to beat terrorism.”
“Rather than having a debate on ID cards the government have decided on having a voluntary scheme.”
“It would have been helpful for them to have people who supported the scheme being involved in it.”
This, on the discovery that less than half the number of people expected and/or required have signed up for the trial – even after all its recent publicity! Patrick Harvie seems to sum things up well:
Green MSP Patrick Harvie, who picketed Home Office minister Des Browne when he arrived in Glasgow to launch the trial, said: “The pilot scheme was set up to learn lessons about how the cards system will run, and they should clearly learn a lesson from the fact that nobody wants it.”
“If there are less than 7,000 in the country who want this enough to spare half an hour of their time to find out about it, then how many people can be in favour of it?”
How many indeed?
Even if the general attitude remains ‘If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear’ the Home Office is going to have an increasingly difficult time equating this with active support for ID cards. Face it folks, no-one really wants to pay for the things – and few who look into it believe that they’ll actually do what the Gov’t says they will.
Re-posted from archive of infinite ideas machine 2004:
John Leyden’s report Accenture wins $10bn Homeland Security gig ends with some interesting facts that may well start to hit home later this year:
Since January, visitors to the US from many countries have been fingerprinted or photographed. Under the US Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, countries whose citizens enjoy visa-free travel to the United States must issue passports with biometric identifiers no later than 26 October 2004.
Hmm – might this explain the Home Office’s sudden hurry to get biometrics ‘working’ on UK passports?
It’s bad enough that the European Union Commission have (ignoring the votes of the European Parliament!) signed an agreement with the US about the transfer of airline Passenger Name Record data – see Spy Blog and The Practical Nomad for detailed commentary and analysis – but for the US to foist biometrics on us all (even us supposed allies!) as a consequence / requirement of its own shaky ‘Homeland Security’ agenda?
Seems like the global bully-boy is revealing its own deep-seated insecurities, making threats (we’ll fingerprint your citizens) and demands (spend billions on biometric technology – which US firms can supply, of course!) of those it knows will fall into line – with little to no chance of getting the *really* bad boys to comply…
UPDATED 10/6/04: Oops! It looks like an important Congressional committee has voted to strip Accenture (plus Dell, AT&T, Sprint and Raytheon) of their lucrative contract, “because Accenture is a foreign company that uses Bermuda as a tax haven.”
