ID cards - update

I’ve thought about this some more and it seems to me that the key is deciding when and how ID cards should be demanded and information linked to identity collected and used.

Wadham says the government should trust its citizens. I say, I don’t trust the government. Specifically, I don’t trust them not to use the information about what I buy and where I go against me, even if everything I do is within the law. No–one should be allowed all that information. It is none of their business. Further, I do not trust the government not to sell the information to the big companies with whom the governments of the UK and US are increasingly in cahoots and for the benefit of whom the world increasingly appears to be run. I remember the way in which we had to fill in all that information on the electoral roll, under penalty of the criminal law and a large fine, which was then made available to marketeers (note the opt–out on the new forms to comply with the Data Protection laws and the Human Rights Act).

I don’t want employers being able to get a dossier containing every piece of information about me in one place. I already feel like I have to justify my existence too damn much to employers via CVs (“just to clear up a few gaps, can you tell me what you did between getting back from your travels in India in January 1997 and starting the job at Vodafone in May 1997”), without having to field questions about (say) how much I drink and where, what books I read, why I have the odd bet on the horses, what I pay Seem Internet for, etc, etc, etc, it goes on…

I suppose what Liberty is saying is that ID cards are the thin end of that wedge.

So the absolute key with ID cards is that while they may be useful and legitimate when it comes to access to services paid for by the tax–payers of this country, we have to be very careful about when it is proper to demand them and how much information is gathered on the computer systems with which they will inevitably be linked.

Tell me when you think checking ID is not an appropriate requirement: After being arrested for a crime? Claiming a state benefit? Seeing a doctor on the NHS? Simply getting into places (bars, shops, places of entertainment… you could see it happening, actually…)? Buying goods and services? Getting into any private residence? Just walking along the street at any time? Where should the line be drawn? A danger here is that if you were to say that you need ID when you are arrested, claim benefits or seek NHS treatment but you don’t need ID to get into the Opera, you may be accused of discriminating against the less wealthy.

My own view at the moment is that ID cards can be justified, but that the information to be collected on law–abiding citizens should be restricted to the absolute bare minimum necessary to protect the people of this country from criminals and fraudsters and should not be provided to third parties by the government. But what I’d certainly assert is that these are the sorts of issues that need to be discussed, rather than cloaking the debate in silly civil liberties rhetoric about trusting citizens and protecting grandmothers.