Identity Cards

[LAX54]

In some western countries, ID is a requirement and nobody would consider those to be totalitarian states.

There are only 3 (Three) European Countries that do NOT have ID cards: EIRE. DENMARK and the UK, ALL other either have compulsory or optional ID Cards.

 

[Bromley boy]

The worrying thing is when you see an advert for (for example) a business in Walsall* when you haven't ever mentioned Walsall online, but happened to mention the football team in a real-life conversation!

Was an Amazon Echo (or similar) close by at the time of that conversation, perchance?

 

[GB]

Those "western" countries that have ID cards...are they compulsory carry and if they are what are the penalties for not carrying them?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Was an Amazon Echo (or similar) close by at the time of that conversation, perchance?

Not to my knowledge... smartphones only (along with the "smart" on board system in my friend's Skoda)...

 

[DavidGrain]

Interesting that Denmark does not have ID cards as when travelling on the train from Denmark to Sweden as I have already mentioned on this thread, I was the only one around who did not have an ID card so had to produce my passport. I noticed that the cards appeared to be two different colours so don't know if that for men and women,

 

[Jonny]

Another issue is that while in continental Europe it would only be the Police, Border guards, etc... doing the checks; there is a subset of jobsworths who are on local authority payrolls who would be wanting access and then running bulk checkpoints that are guaranteed to inconvenience the innocent for no good reason.

 

[krus_aragon]

I think ID cards make a lot of sense. There are people who say they aren't necessary because you can just use a provisional driving licence. However, there are a number of unfortunate people whose medical conditions do not let them to drive and so this is not a viable option for them.

A cousin of mine has this issue in Canada, where driving is even more ingrained than here. Driving licenses are the only think most people and busineses think of asking for as a proof of ID.

"Can I see your driving license?"
"I don't have a driving license. I'm registered blind; here's my CNIB identity card."
"Sorry, I have to see your driving license."
"No, you really don't want me to have a driving license!"

 

[Bletchleyite]

A cousin of mine has this issue in Canada, where driving is even more ingrained than here. Driving licenses are the only think most people and busineses think of asking for as a proof of ID.

"Can I see your driving license?"
"I don't have a driving license. I'm registered blind; here's my CNIB identity card."
"Sorry, I have to see your driving license."
"No, you really don't want me to have a driving license!"

Though as I've mentioned the normal form of ID in the US for a non-driver (passports not being so useful over there) is a non-driving driving licence - a driving licence with no entitlement on it - and I still think the option to purchase one of those at cost price (or even to give the first one out for nothing) is likely to be the best solution.

 

[najaB]

...there is a subset of jobsworths...

This dropped the value of your post to zero.

 

[etr221]

Talk of driving licences as id, reminds of the story of one friends, driver on the **** Railway, asked to show his driving licence (when not in his car, so not obviously driving), showed his **** Railway one...

Query - do drivers on National Rail have licences?
I recall, a few years ago, that when LU bought some road railers, they had a problem finding drivers for them - plenty of train drivers, plenty of appropriate road vehicle drivers, but very few qualified to do both

 

[Busaholic]

A certain individual of UK origin apprehended in Spain under an International Arrest Warrant has apparently consented to his extradition back to the UK (big of him.)The official story is that he had various 'identities' while on the run which aided his escaping justice. It proves (to my satisfaction, anyway) that the old saw that 'the innocent needn't fear identity checks' should be altered to 'ONLY the innocent need fear identity checks' because the career criminal, and those with enough money to buy them, will easily acquire the necessary paperwork.

 

[najaB]

The official story is that he had various 'identities' while on the run which aided his escaping justice. It proves (to my satisfaction, anyway) that the old saw that 'the innocent needn't fear identity checks' should be altered to 'ONLY the innocent need fear identity checks' because the career criminal, and those with enough money to buy them, will easily acquire the necessary paperwork.

And how much easier is it to acquire a birth certificate and two recent utility bills- bearing in mind that banks, etc. are unable to actually check anything other than the date on the birth certificate and the address on the bills?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Various totalitarian states are attempting to force adoption of ID cards as bank cards, so that the state can gain immediate access to all transaction information.

Really? Which ones?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Putting too much information on one database is risky. Should said database get hacked (as it inevitably will - Government IT security is notoriously crap - think about the ransomware that affected the NHS a couple of years ago) then there will be a lot of information about people that can be harvested.

On the other hand, HMRC must maintain databases that contain significant information about almost every one of us - certainly a lot more information that would reasonably go on any ID card. They've had that data for decades - ever since before it was even possible to put most of it on computers. And off the top of my head, I don't recall hearing of any instances of that data being hacked and harvested.

 

[AlterEgo]

A certain individual of UK origin apprehended in Spain under an International Arrest Warrant has apparently consented to his extradition back to the UK (big of him.)The official story is that he had various 'identities' while on the run which aided his escaping justice. It proves (to my satisfaction, anyway) that the old saw that 'the innocent needn't fear identity checks' should be altered to 'ONLY the innocent need fear identity checks' because the career criminal, and those with enough money to buy them, will easily acquire the necessary paperwork.

The whole reason why he was able to assume several different identifies is precisely because there is no requirement in Britain or Spain to carry a single identity card. It is very easy to get hold of anyone’s birth certificate or a copy thereof, for example.

Identities are very easy to create or assume in this country.

 

[HSTEd]

Really? Which ones?

The obvious example is the United Arab Emirates.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I wouldn't. Once it was there, it would only take one vote in parliament to make carrying it compulsory.

The UK is a permissive society. I'd rather keep it so.

This kind of argument puzzles me. To my mind, permissive broadly means that there are relatively few restrictions (either legal or cultural) on what things I and other consenting adults can do (usually, in private), provided it does not harm others. I'm struggling to see how a requirement to carry an ID card would change that.

If I go outside in public, there is already, for all practical purposes, a legal requirement to take with me (and to wear) sufficient clothes to cover up certain parts of my body. There's also in most cases a practical requirement to take with me house keys, and a wallet with at least one bank card. Can you explain what significant freedom would be curtailed if a small plastic credit-card-sized ID card was added to that list? Seems pretty inconsequential to me in comparison with all the other things I need to keep on my person when outside.

In a way this argument reminds me of the debate about CCTV cameras 20 or so years ago. Remember how lots of (mainly, right-wing) politicians were pretty much going nuts about the supposed appalling threat to our liberty posed by cameras in public places able to see what we are doing in public. Of course what all those politicians missed was that the cameras actually have zero impact on our liberty because they don't actually stop you doing anything (Or at least, anything legal). And now people have got used to them, there's basically no controversy at all about CCTV in public places. ID cards look like a pretty similar situation to me. For ID cards, the impact isn't on what we can do isn't quite zero - as carrying an ID card does take a tiny bit of effort - but it's so close to zero as to make basically no odds to our liberty.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If I go outside in public, there is already, for all practical purposes, a legal requirement to take with me (and to wear) sufficient clothes to cover up certain parts of my body. There's also in most cases a practical requirement to take with me house keys, and a wallet with at least one bank card. Can you explain what significant freedom would be curtailed if a small plastic credit-card-sized ID card was added to that list? Seems pretty inconsequential to me in comparison with all the other things I need to keep on my person when outside.

It rather depends. Certainly I carry my driving licence if I go out with my wallet. If however I go for a run I often take only my house key in a small pocket in my running shorts, which is too small to fit a card in.

But that's slightly by the by. The fundamental problem is that compulsory identity (i.e. show-on-demand) changes the relationship between the state and the individual. It essentially creates an assumption of "guilty until proven innocent".

I don't object to a card existing (though I do object to huge expensive schemes like Labour's one - the most cost effective and easiest way to do it is simply a non-driving driving licence issued by the DVLA using the existing processes for issuing provisional driving licences, which would cost only about twenty quid every 10 years and would not be needed by anyone who has a driving one instead), nor do I object to businesses (such as domestic airlines) requiring it for commercial reasons, but I *do* object to compulsory carry by law.

 

[GB]

If I go outside in public, there is already, for all practical purposes, a legal requirement to take with me (and to wear) sufficient clothes to cover up certain parts of my body. There's also in most cases a practical requirement to take with me house keys, and a wallet with at least one bank card. Can you explain what significant freedom would be curtailed if a small plastic credit-card-sized ID card was added to that list? Seems pretty inconsequential to me in comparison with all the other things I need to keep on my person when outside.

Short of going out naked, none of the above has any legal implications. To make ID cards compulsory, there is an implicit notion that there will be spot checks to check compliance and that if you do not carry it you will be breaking some law/regulations/rules....and with that comes some kind of penalty.

I have no problem with my details being on a record somewhere...I have a drivers license, passport and I am registered to vote. But I draw the line at having to have ID just to walk down the street or pop to the shops.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Short of going out naked, none of the above has any legal implications. To make ID cards compulsory, there is an implicit notion that there will be spot checks to check compliance and that if you do not carry it you will be breaking some law/regulations/rules....and with that comes some kind of penalty.

I have no problem with my details being on a record somewhere...I have a drivers license, passport and I am registered to vote. But I draw the line at having to have ID just to walk down the street or pop to the shops.

Sure. But that doesn't answer the question I asked in the post you're replying to. I specifically asked what significant freedom would be curtailed if a small plastic credit-card-sized ID card was added to [the list of existing things to carry I gave]. Your reply basically (re)states that you object to a requirement to carry ID, without clarifying what significant freedom would be curtailed. In what significant way would your life be restricted if you needed to carry a small ID card with you when out and about? Presumably, for you to object so strongly to a legal requirement to carry ID, you must feel that this would in some way significantly impact your freedom, no? If so, how?

 

[Lucan]

To make ID cards compulsory, there is an implicit notion that there will be spot checks to check compliance

No there isn't. Obviously if you are caught committing a crime, or living in a container in the docks, you will be asked for it. My experience is that the police are too lazy or busy to bother even with crime, let alone standing in the street asking to see ID cards. I called 999 once when a neighbour's house was being burgled (blatently). A policeman came round three days later with the usual BS that they were "monitoring" and seemed to expect a nice cup of tea.

Reading through these posts I find it incredible how many different theories there are, mostly unfavourable, as to how ID cards would work. Some of you guys seem to have strange nightmares, a lot different from mine.

 

[HSTEd]

No there isn't. Obviously if you are caught committing a crime, or living in a container in the docks, you will be asked for it. My experience is that the police are too lazy or busy to bother even with crime, let alone standing in the street asking to see ID cards. I called 999 once when a neighbour's house was being burgled (blatently). A policeman came round three days later with the usual BS that they were "monitoring" and seemed to expect a nice cup of tea.

But this is a crime that they can prove immediately, and for which the clearance rate will thus be 100%

This is the dream of any senior officer who has arrest and clearup targets to meet.
And just think of how many fines the PCC will be able to cream out of people.

And thats before "I thought his ID card was fake" is used as a means to haul in anyone and everyone the police don't like the look of.

Sure. But that doesn't answer the question I asked in the post you're replying to. I specifically asked what significant freedom would be curtailed if a small plastic credit-card-sized ID card was added to [the list of existing things to carry I gave]. Your reply basically (re)states that you object to a requirement to carry ID, without clarifying what significant freedom would be curtailed. In what significant way would your life be restricted if you needed to carry a small ID card with you when out and about? Presumably, for you to object so strongly to a legal requirement to carry ID, you must feel that this would in some way significantly impact your freedom, no? If so, how?

The fact that the state will now regiment my life to the point that I must ensure that I always carry an item around, for no other purpose than because the state commands that I carry it.
If I am not intending to spend any money, why would I even be carrying my wallet?

 

[najaB]

But this is a crime...

What crime?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If I am not intending to spend any money, why would I even be carrying my wallet?

Quite a lot of people these days, particularly in London, just carry their phone as they can spend using that instead.

 

[HSTEd]

What crime?

If carrying an ID card is compulsory, then not carrying it is almost certainly a crime.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

But this is a crime that they can prove immediately, and for which the clearance rate will thus be 100%

This is the dream of any senior officer who has arrest and clearup targets to meet.
And just think of how many fines the PCC will be able to cream out of people.

You're making quite a lot of assumptions there - in particular, that the requirement would specifically be to have an ID card on your person at all times. That seems a bit questionable to me, most obviously because it's not the way it works with the most comparable current situation: Driving licenses/insurance and driving. In that case, the requirement is merely to be able to produce the said documentation in a reasonable timeframe, rather than to have it on you. To that extent, I'd say you're arguing against a strawman: You're arguing against a particular possible (and rather unrealistic) way that ID card law might hypothetically be implemented, rather than against the principle.

And thats before "I thought his ID card was fake" is used as a means to haul in anyone and everyone the police don't like the look of.

Any stats on how often that happens with driving licenses? My guess is - almost never. So what makes you think it'd be any different for ID cards? Again, you're arguing against a strawman: You've set up a fantasy idea of how the system might theoretically be abused, and you're arguing against that.

The fact that the state will now regiment my life

Regiment my life? You sure you're not using emotive language as a substitute for addressing the real issues? The state already requires probably thousands of things of you that you scarcely even think about most of the time, things like not entering private property, not stealing, filling in your tax return on time, paying your taxes and your council tax, declaring where you live so you go on the electoral register. Do you consider those to constitute unacceptable regimentation of your life? Adding having an ID card to that list would be something like maybe a 0.1% (if you could measure it) addition to the things you are required to do/not do. That tiny addition hardly merits the description 'regiment my life'.

to the point that I must ensure that I always carry an item around, for no other purpose than because the state commands that I carry it.
If I am not intending to spend any money, why would I even be carrying my wallet?

But it wouldn't be for no other purpose. It would be for the purpose of making it much easier to prevent many times of fraud, and for easier detection of other types of crime, notably including illegal immigration, and for ensuring in general that public services are consumed only by the people they are intended for. Bit misleading to describe all that as 'no other purpose'!

 

[HSTEd]

You're making quite a lot of assumptions there - in particular, that the requirement would specifically be to have an ID card on your person at all times. That seems a bit questionable to me, most obviously because it's not the way it works with the most comparable current situation: Driving licenses/insurance and driving. In that case, the requirement is merely to be able to produce the said documentation in a reasonable timeframe, rather than to have it on you. To that extent, I'd say you're arguing against a strawman: You're arguing against a particular possible (and rather unrealistic) way that ID card law might hypothetically be implemented, rather than against the principle.

Compulsory carriage of the card at all times is how the system works in much of Europe.
And since most backers of ID cards claim that ID cards are acceptable because they are acceptable in Europe - this is not an unreasonable assumption.

After all, why on earth would we need a biometric ID card anyway.

Any stats on how often that happens with driving licenses? My guess is - almost never. So what makes you think it'd be any different for ID cards? Again, you're arguing against a strawman: You've set up a fantasy idea of how the system might theoretically be abused, and you're arguing against that.

Failure to carry a driving licence at all times is not a crime.
And you are not required to present your driving licence to a police officer on demand.

Regiment my life? You sure you're not using emotive language as a substitute for addressing the real issues? The state already requires probably thousands of things of you that you scarcely even think about most of the time, things like not entering private property, not stealing, filling in your tax return on time, paying your taxes and your council tax, declaring where you live so you go on the electoral register. Do you consider those to constitute unacceptable regimentation of your life?

Relatively few people ever fill out a tax return, and all of these other things are either requiring you not to commit an act (which is not the same as requiring you take an action), or are only brief interludesi n your life.
This is something that you will be required to do at all times, on pain of punishment.

But it wouldn't be for no other purpose. It would be for the purpose of making it much easier to prevent many times of fraud,

Given that fraud from fake identities is not a particularily big problem on a national scale........ and this would not protect against stolen identity fraud (since they will simply steal the card) - I'm not seeing the benefits.

and for easier detection of other types of crime, notably including illegal immigration, and for ensuring in general that public services are consumed only by the people they are intended for. Bit misleading to describe all that as 'no other purpose'!

So again, problems that are not particularily massive and/or are blown out of proportion to allow the government to scaremonger totalitarian policies.
Most public services are either difficult to commit ID fraud for (see benefits, pensions etc) because of the documentation normally used, or are available essentially to all (see NHS treatment, etc).

 

[najaB]

If carrying an ID card is compulsory, then not carrying it is almost certainly a crime.

Who said that compulsory carry was a thing?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Given that fraud from fake identities is not a particularily big problem on a national scale........ and this would not protect against stolen identity fraud (since they will simply steal the card) - I'm not seeing the benefits.

If (quite plausibly) the card contains a digital/electronic encoded photo that is routinely checked when the card is used, then people who steal cards would not normally be able to use them without being detected.

So again, problems that are not particularily massive and/or are blown out of proportion to allow the government to scaremonger totalitarian policies.
Most public services are either difficult to commit ID fraud for (see benefits, pensions etc) because of the documentation normally used, or are available essentially to all (see NHS treatment, etc).

Not particularly massive? I'd say fraud is a pretty huge problem. Illegal immigration is not as big a problem as many people make out, but it's big enough to have had a fairly dramatic (and unpleasant) impact on Government policies towards immigration, so from that point of view anything that makes it easier to detect would be extremely welcome.

As for your comment, scaremonger totalitarian policies - more emotive language??? I'm sure your debating standard is usually higher than this A totalitarian policy would be something like, locking up all your political opponents, or closing down most independent media, or having leading members of the opposition assassinated. Issuing people with an ID card that they are required to use to show their identity in certain circumstances doesn't even begin to compare with real 'totalitarian policies'.

 

[Busaholic]

The whole reason why he was able to assume several different identifies is precisely because there is no requirement in Britain or Spain to carry a single identity card. It is very easy to get hold of anyone’s birth certificate or a copy thereof, for example.

Identities are very easy to create or assume in this country.

So he'd carry, or have available to him from the various minders hired to protect him, several different identity cards. Sufficient money will buy you anything, save (thankfully for the rest of us) everlasting life.