Post by Michael on Jan 23, 2008 5:43:30 GMT -5
I want to start with a question; do you trust the government? Got an answer? Okay now answer this one. Do you trust the next government? How about the one after that? Of course you can’t answer the last two because you don’t know who will be in power. But if I asked you if you agreed with identity cards then, especially if you answered yes to my first question, you might well be inclined to state your support for the scheme.
Of course the point that I am trying to make is, that in a landscape of increasingly centralised politics, the motivations of one government may differ from that of the next one. Whether you believe that the current government’s motives for bringing in an ID card scheme is pure (and you won’t be surprised that I don’t necessarily believe that is the case) you also have to be certain that their successors will follow the same ethical path, and their successors and, possibly, forever more.
The government suggests that ID cards would prevent the flow of illegal immigrants and prevent illegal working; help prevent terrorism, reduce fraud and the abuse of public services and help tackle identity theft.
The one that screams out from that list in today’s society is the prevention of terrorism. As most people are well aware, three of the four 7/7 bombers were born in Yorkshire; had the ID scheme been in place, they would have had perfectly valid cards. Indeed, civil liberties campaigners Liberty states that ID cards have had not stopped attacks in other countries. ID cards would apparently make it harder for both terrorists and organised crime rings to use false and multiple identities, but that makes some major assumptions.
One of which is another of the major problems with ID cards; namely that, when you become reliant on identity cards, you stop going through the more traditional ways of ascertaining somebody’s identity. An ID card, be it fake or real, becomes all you need to get through security systems that have relied on alertness in the past. You are essentially putting your security in the hands of the makers of the cards – if they can be faked or duplicated then you are simply opening up the country to greater risks.
And, let’s face it, the past few months have hardly done the government any favours in terms of keeping private data private – with MoD computers going missing and data discs being lost in the post – but it is this very data that could be used by the very crime syndicates and terrorists that ID cards are apparently preventing from getting the paperwork (or even the card) that allows them to attain a card.
Do you agree with Patrick and think ID Cards are a dangerous concept - or do you think they would be beneficial to Britain? Have your say on our message boards
In fact, to truly use this kind of scheme to have any major impact on terrorism and crime, the government would seemingly have to step up its surveillance to such a degree that personal liberty would be threatened. If you take away enough of our civil liberties you might well cut the crime statistics, I just don’t want to be in a country that resembles Air Strip One in George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984.
There’s a statement that so often crops up in discussions about civil liberty and ID cards; ‘If you do nothing wrong when why be worried about the increase in security/surveillance/identity cards?’.
Primarily, as I suggested at the start of this article, you have to ask people if they have absolute faith in the motives of present and future governments. In a utopian society you could make a very good case for this argument, but the fact is that we do not know that the best interests of the people (and what are they?) are truly represented by those in power – regardless of political motivation.
The second concern is that you are relying on the status quo of criminality and right and wrong to remain – but what if something you intrinsically feel is right is outlawed? Would you feel so secure in a world of surveillance if you were considered a criminal or terrorist because of your beliefs or religion? What if opposition to the ruling party became a crime?
As it stands, would the arrival of an ID card system worsen the persecution of ethnic minorities, as the police are potentially given powers of stop and search to make sure that that people have the correct papers? The parallel with Communist Russia and party membership cards should not be ignored.
The ownership of this information is another major problem. The fact that the government does not sell information to the highest bidder at the present time (as far as we know) does not mean that this will always be the case, and we have already discussed the track record of keeping data secure. If biometric and medical information is something that the government requires to make its scheme a success then how do we know this information will be safe?
Do you really want all of your personal information in the public domain? Would your employer keep you on if they found out that you had suffered from a disease earlier in life that could affect your longevity? When you start taking privacy away from the individual you quickly run into a whole new set of ethical questions and worries.
It seems to me that there has been very little in the way of convincing argument for ID cards, but that it takes only the briefest of considerations to uncover a plethora of questions and concerns that have not been addressed.
I don’t just think ID cards are just a concern but one of the most sinister and potentially dangerous schemes we have ever encountered. If such a concept can be forced through by this government or any other then I think it will go a long way to proving that our very democracy is built on quicksand.
tech.uk.msn.com/features/article.aspx?cp-documentid=7317132
Of course the point that I am trying to make is, that in a landscape of increasingly centralised politics, the motivations of one government may differ from that of the next one. Whether you believe that the current government’s motives for bringing in an ID card scheme is pure (and you won’t be surprised that I don’t necessarily believe that is the case) you also have to be certain that their successors will follow the same ethical path, and their successors and, possibly, forever more.
The government suggests that ID cards would prevent the flow of illegal immigrants and prevent illegal working; help prevent terrorism, reduce fraud and the abuse of public services and help tackle identity theft.
The one that screams out from that list in today’s society is the prevention of terrorism. As most people are well aware, three of the four 7/7 bombers were born in Yorkshire; had the ID scheme been in place, they would have had perfectly valid cards. Indeed, civil liberties campaigners Liberty states that ID cards have had not stopped attacks in other countries. ID cards would apparently make it harder for both terrorists and organised crime rings to use false and multiple identities, but that makes some major assumptions.
One of which is another of the major problems with ID cards; namely that, when you become reliant on identity cards, you stop going through the more traditional ways of ascertaining somebody’s identity. An ID card, be it fake or real, becomes all you need to get through security systems that have relied on alertness in the past. You are essentially putting your security in the hands of the makers of the cards – if they can be faked or duplicated then you are simply opening up the country to greater risks.
And, let’s face it, the past few months have hardly done the government any favours in terms of keeping private data private – with MoD computers going missing and data discs being lost in the post – but it is this very data that could be used by the very crime syndicates and terrorists that ID cards are apparently preventing from getting the paperwork (or even the card) that allows them to attain a card.
Do you agree with Patrick and think ID Cards are a dangerous concept - or do you think they would be beneficial to Britain? Have your say on our message boards
In fact, to truly use this kind of scheme to have any major impact on terrorism and crime, the government would seemingly have to step up its surveillance to such a degree that personal liberty would be threatened. If you take away enough of our civil liberties you might well cut the crime statistics, I just don’t want to be in a country that resembles Air Strip One in George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984.
There’s a statement that so often crops up in discussions about civil liberty and ID cards; ‘If you do nothing wrong when why be worried about the increase in security/surveillance/identity cards?’.
Primarily, as I suggested at the start of this article, you have to ask people if they have absolute faith in the motives of present and future governments. In a utopian society you could make a very good case for this argument, but the fact is that we do not know that the best interests of the people (and what are they?) are truly represented by those in power – regardless of political motivation.
The second concern is that you are relying on the status quo of criminality and right and wrong to remain – but what if something you intrinsically feel is right is outlawed? Would you feel so secure in a world of surveillance if you were considered a criminal or terrorist because of your beliefs or religion? What if opposition to the ruling party became a crime?
As it stands, would the arrival of an ID card system worsen the persecution of ethnic minorities, as the police are potentially given powers of stop and search to make sure that that people have the correct papers? The parallel with Communist Russia and party membership cards should not be ignored.
The ownership of this information is another major problem. The fact that the government does not sell information to the highest bidder at the present time (as far as we know) does not mean that this will always be the case, and we have already discussed the track record of keeping data secure. If biometric and medical information is something that the government requires to make its scheme a success then how do we know this information will be safe?
Do you really want all of your personal information in the public domain? Would your employer keep you on if they found out that you had suffered from a disease earlier in life that could affect your longevity? When you start taking privacy away from the individual you quickly run into a whole new set of ethical questions and worries.
It seems to me that there has been very little in the way of convincing argument for ID cards, but that it takes only the briefest of considerations to uncover a plethora of questions and concerns that have not been addressed.
I don’t just think ID cards are just a concern but one of the most sinister and potentially dangerous schemes we have ever encountered. If such a concept can be forced through by this government or any other then I think it will go a long way to proving that our very democracy is built on quicksand.
tech.uk.msn.com/features/article.aspx?cp-documentid=7317132