Identity Cards

[HSTEd]

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.

The idea of people routinely recording suitably high quality mugshots in banks and any number of locations, with the potential for such information to be diverted to any number of nefarious purposes, is rather terrifying.

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.

The weakness of politicians and their inability to use evidence to support their positions is not an argument from infringment of civil liberties, in my opinion.
The kinds of fraud that are prevented by ID cards are still a relatively minor part of the whole however.

As for your comment, scaremonger totalitarian policies - more emotive language??? I'm sure your debating standard is usually higher than this

This is an inherently emotive topic.
From a purely utilitarian perspective it is rather difficult to argue against constant facial recognition surveillance, with implanted RFID chips in all people that contain biometric information and are used in place of all bank cards, with them (and cash) being otherwise forbidden.
All transactions, all attempts to unlock doors, all entrances and exits of buildings, would be held on a secure database held by the state and it's security services.

But this is obviously a rather orwellian vision.

 

[HSTEd]

Who said that compulsory carry was a thing?

Given that there are various forms of state accepted ID that can be obtained already - if compulsory carry is not to be pursued.... what is the point of the entire scheme?

 

[transmanche]

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.

It's unlikely that HMRC keeps any significant or detailed data on people for more than seven years.

If you recall the recent (and ongoing) Windrush scandal, one of the main issues were that people were expected to produce documentation such as P60s for every single year they had lived in the UK as that information was not available in HMRC's systems.

It's only a few years since P60s (and other payroll year-end returns) have become computerised. They used to be all done on paper and it's quite hard to 'hack' paper records.

 

[najaB]

Given that there are various forms of state accepted ID that can be obtained already - if compulsory carry is not to be pursued.... what is the point of the entire scheme?

You said it yourself - there are several forms that *can* be obtained, but no single form that *must* be obtained. Which renders the others somewhat moot.

"Who are you?"
"John Smith"
"Do you have a passport?"
"Don't travel."
"Do you have a driving licence?"
"Don't drive"
And so on.

 

[HSTEd]

You said it yourself - there are several forms that *can* be obtained, but no single form that *must* be obtained. Which renders the others somewhat moot.

"Who are you?"
"John Smith"
"Do you have a passport?"
"Don't travel."
"Do you have a driving licence?"
"Don't drive"
And so on.

And why is it John Smith's duty to be able to prove (with state approved documentation) that he is who he claims to be?

And I've been using a provisional driving licence for ID for the last decade, until I finally passed my test at the fourth attempt!

 

[GB]

Who said that compulsory carry was a thing?

It is an option in the poll in the OP.

If compulsory carry is required but there is no penalty for not showing it then why make it compulsory?
If compulsory carry is not a requirement then what is the point in a compulsory ID scheme in the first place?

 

[krus_aragon]

It is an option in the poll in the OP.

If compulsory carry is required but there is no penalty for not showing it then why make it compulsory?
If compulsory carry is not a requirement then what is the point in a compulsory ID scheme in the first place?

Perhaps for compulsory acceptance (by those that seek proof of your identity), thus avoiding the issue of the likes of the CitizenCard not being recognised.

 

[GB]

Perhaps for compulsory acceptance (by those that seek proof of your identity), thus avoiding the issue of the likes of the CitizenCard not being recognised.

In that case then either the CitizenCard or Validate card scheme should be improved with the onus on establishments to legally accept them a any further ID scheme optional for those that wan't them.

I see no need to make every one have an ID card and I see no reason why one should be required to carry it at all times.

 

[headshot119]

In that case then either the CitizenCard or Validate card scheme should be improved with the onus on establishments to legally accept them a any further ID scheme optional for those that wan't them.

I see no need to make every one have an ID card and I see no reason why one should be required to carry it at all times.

The reason most places won't accept a PASS card is because they are far too easy to obtain fraudulently. Either by buying a good quality fake off of Dave down the market, or using a siblings details with your photo.

It then puts the retailer at risk of being stung for under age selling.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

And why is it John Smith's duty to be able to prove (with state approved documentation) that he is who he claims to be?

Having the responsibility to prove who you are if necessary is how the World works. That has nothing to do with ID cards, that's how things are and how they have always been. If I want to open a bank account, or be interviewed for a new job, or buy a car or a house, or meet someone who I've just been interacting with through online dating, or get on an aeroplane, etc. etc., and the other person or organisation has any doubt about whether I really am the person I'm claiming to be, then it's usually up to ME to provide some kind of evidence that I am who I'm claiming to be, in order to reassure the other party that it's OK and safe for them to continue the interaction/transaction/etc. I'm not sure why anyone would object to that concept? The only thing that would be new with compulsory identity cards is that (a) I would have a much easier and more standard way of proving certain things about who I am, and (b) there would be a legal obligation to have this bit of (most likely) plastic either with me or easily available (depending how the law was framed) - which doesn't seem particularly onerous.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This is an inherently emotive topic.

It doesn't seem remotely emotive to me. To me an emotive topic would be something like, children being bombed, or people starving in a famine, or people being persecuted because of their religion, or people being kicked out of their homes and made homeless because of benefit cuts. We're talking here basically about having to carry a bit of plastic with you. If you think carrying a bit of plastic with you is emotive, then that gives me the impression you must have a very low threshold for what you consider to be an 'emotive' topic!

The idea of people routinely recording suitably high quality mugshots in banks and any number of locations, with the potential for such information to be diverted to any number of nefarious purposes, is rather terrifying.

Ah.

So do you find the CCTV cameras that have been in banks for years terrifying?

 

[GB]

The reason most places won't accept a PASS card is because they are far too easy to obtain fraudulently. Either by buying a good quality fake off of Dave down the market, or using a siblings details with your photo.

It then puts the retailer at risk of being stung for under age selling.

But thats where I said should be improved....now admittedly I don't know what it would take but a drivers license is just a bit of plastic and retailers are happy to accept those.

 

[najaB]

And why is it John Smith's duty to be able to prove (with state approved documentation) that he is who he claims to be?

Going back to how this thread started: because Mr Smith is being reported for fare evasion.

Or because Mr Smith wants to open a bank account, sign on for benefits, prove he's entitled to free treatment under the NHS, or any of the million reasons that someone might need to be sure that Mr Smith is, in fact, Mr Smith.

 

[GB]

Having the responsibility to prove who you are if necessary is how the World works. That has nothing to do with ID cards, that's how things are and how they have always been. If I want to open a bank account, or be interviewed for a new job, or buy a car or a house, or meet someone who I've just been interacting with through online dating, or get on an aeroplane, etc. etc., and the other person or organisation has any doubt about whether I really am the person I'm claiming to be, then it's usually up to ME to provide some kind of evidence that I am who I'm claiming to be, in order to reassure the other party that it's OK and safe for them to continue the interaction/transaction/etc. I'm not sure why anyone would object to that concept? The only thing that would be new with compulsory identity cards is that (a) I would have a much easier and more standard way of proving certain things about who I am, and (b) there would be a legal obligation to have this bit of (most likely) plastic either with me or easily available (depending how the law was framed) - which doesn't seem particularly onerous.

Don't think anyone can or will argue against the need to identify yourself in certain situations...but why on earth would you wan't a law (and that is what compulsory carry ID amounts to) that states you need to have ID to do simple things like heading to the shops, going out for a run, bike ride or just simply reading a book in the park?

Edit. or to put another way.

I have a drivers license, why do I need a separate ID card to do those things you suggest?
If I am not doing those things, why do I need to carry ID?

 

[Bletchleyite]

And why is it John Smith's duty to be able to prove (with state approved documentation) that he is who he claims to be?

And I've been using a provisional driving licence for ID for the last decade, until I finally passed my test at the fourth attempt!

This would work for most people, but it does leave the few who aren't entitled to drive for whatever reason e.g. medical.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

It's unlikely that HMRC keeps any significant or detailed data on people for more than seven years.

They could try doing a full data download from Google; there was a report on the BBC website the other day - I can't find the link right now - where someone managed to do this and received a huge report which included ever website URL he had ever visited, every Google search he had ever done include those while incognito and the locations he had done all that from.

If that wouldn't prove they'd been living in the UK since at least the start of the internet age, then nothing will.

 

[HSTEd]

Having the responsibility to prove who you are if necessary is how the World works. That has nothing to do with ID cards, that's how things are and how they have always been. If I want to open a bank account, or be interviewed for a new job, or buy a car or a house, or meet someone who I've just been interacting with through online dating, or get on an aeroplane, etc. etc., and the other person or organisation has any doubt about whether I really am the person I'm claiming to be, then it's usually up to ME to provide some kind of evidence that I am who I'm claiming to be, in order to reassure the other party that it's OK and safe for them to continue the interaction/transaction/etc. I'm not sure why anyone would object to that concept?

And what fraction of your life will you spend doing these specific activities?
How is this equivalent to the state commanding you must carry documents it commands every second of every day on pain of punishment?

The only thing that would be new with compulsory identity cards is that (a) I would have a much easier and more standard way of proving certain things about who I am, and (b) there would be a legal obligation to have this bit of (most likely) plastic either with me or easily available (depending how the law was framed) - which doesn't seem particularly onerous.

So you must carry documentation to prove that you are not commiting fraud or conspiring to commit fraud?
Presumption of innocence goes out of the window.
You become little more than a serf who must serve the glorious state.

It doesn't seem remotely emotive to me. To me an emotive topic would be something like, children being bombed, or people starving in a famine, or people being persecuted because of their religion, or people being kicked out of their homes and made homeless because of benefit cuts. We're talking here basically about having to carry a bit of plastic with you. If you think carrying a bit of plastic with you is emotive, then that gives me the impression you must have a very low threshold for what you consider to be an 'emotive' topic!

The destruction of major civil liberties and the creation of one of the building blocks of a police state is not an emotive topic?

Ah.

So do you find the CCTV cameras that have been in banks for years terrifying?

You mean those CCTV cameras which have video quality so poor that they are useless for the kind of operations you are suggesting would be carried out using your new fangled ID database.

Going back to how this thread started: because Mr Smith is being reported for fare evasion.

As fare evasion is a criminal offence, you (as in any member of the public) are entitled to detain said person until appropriate authorities arrive to deal with it.

Or because Mr Smith wants to open a bank account, sign on for benefits,

Operations that are normally undertaken once in a blue moon and at a time that is well known in advance - rather removing the benefit of this catch all identity document.

prove he's entitled to free treatment under the NHS

The vast majority of people who walk through the door of a hospital are entitled to free treatment, to create a giant bureaucracy to weed out a few who attend for non emergency medical procedures is hilariously bad value for money.
And if its an emergency they are going to have to be treated anyway.

, or any of the million reasons that someone might need to be sure that Mr Smith is, in fact, Mr Smith.

it's been quite some time since I had to prove who I was to anyone. And the last time was a visit to a secure nuclear facility.

This would work for most people, but it does leave the few who aren't entitled to drive for whatever reason e.g. medical.

Then allow issuance of a provisional driving licence that does not actually provide authority to drive a vehicle.
Job done, and without building a police state.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Don't think anyone can or will argue against the need to identify yourself in certain situations...but why on earth would you wan't a law (and that is what compulsory carry ID amounts to) that states you need to have ID to do simple things like heading to the shops, going out for a run, bike ride or just simply reading a book in the park?

I would say the reason is to make it easier to resolve things if something bad happens while you're going for your run/bike ride/whatever. Imagine that you - say - go to the park, and someone gets mugged in your vicinity, or you go to work in a restaurant that also illegally employs people not entitled to work, or you go to the shops and some crime gets committed there. I'm sure in all cases, your attitude towards the police or whoever comes to investigate and wants to ask you some questions would NOT be 'Hey, this is Britain, we're free. I shouldn't have to tell you who I am/shouldn't have to prove I'm not one of the illegal immigrants here, etc. etc.' Rather, you'd want to be helpful, and provide your details in order to assist the investigation. ID cards would possibly make that process a lot easier. And in particular - in the case of illegal immigrants, they would make it much harder for those immigrants to try to evade detection by also claiming that, there's no reason why they should have to prove their identity.

Think of it as analogous to safety regulations. Many safety regulations do actually cause a tiny bit of mild inconvenience day-to-day, and for the vast majority of the time, offer no benefit, but we accept that because the flip-side is that on those rare occasions when something goes wrong, those safety regulations might protect you from serious injury/falling victim to a crime/etc. It's a trade off between mild day-to-day interference in your life versus protection (either for you, or for wider society) from rare disasters ('disasters' is probably too strong a word but hopefully you get what I mean).

I have a drivers license, why do I need a separate ID card to do those things you suggest?

Well, under some possible implementations of ID cards, you'd no longer need a separate driving license if you had the ID card.

 

[HSTEd]

I would say the reason is to make it easier to resolve things if something bad happens while you're going for your run/bike ride/whatever. Imagine that you - say - go to the park, and someone gets mugged in your vicinity, or you go to work in a restaurant that also illegally employs people not entitled to work, or you go to the shops and some crime gets committed there. I'm sure in all cases, your attitude towards the police or whoever comes to investigate and wants to ask you some questions would NOT be 'Hey, this is Britain, we're free. I shouldn't have to tell you who I am/shouldn't have to prove I'm not one of the illegal immigrants here, etc. etc.' Rather, you'd want to be helpful, and provide your details in order to assist the investigation. ID cards would possibly make that process a lot easier. And in particular - in the case of illegal immigrants, they would make it much harder for those immigrants to try to evade detection by also claiming that, there's no reason why they should have to prove their identity.

Think of it as analogous to safety regulations. Many safety regulations do actually cause a tiny bit of mild inconvenience day-to-day, and for the vast majority of the time, offer no benefit, but we accept that because the flip-side is that on those rare occasions when something goes wrong, those safety regulations might protect you from serious injury/falling victim to a crime/etc. It's a trade off between mild day-to-day interference in your life versus protection (either for you, or for wider society) from rare disasters ('disasters' is probably too strong a word but hopefully you get what I mean).

In other words, give up your freedom or the criminals will win.

I am not sure how an ID card actually assists the police in contacting someone beyond saying "My name is x, my phone number is y, good day"

 

[najaB]

...to create a giant bureaucracy...

Nice. As has been pointed out numerous times this could be done simply, easily and cheaply by issuing non-driving driving licences. The infrastructure is already there and it would require minimal changes.

it's been quite some time since I had to prove who I was to anyone.

Good for you. I'm glad to know that you, personally and singally represent every resident of the UK.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

And what fraction of your life will you spend doing these specific activities?
How is this equivalent to the state commanding you must carry documents it commands every second of every day on pain of punishment?

Oh do stop being so ridiculous! You're completely misrepresenting the arguments for ID cards, and over-exaggerating what any likely law would be.

Usually you argue quite reasonably on these forums. But as far as I can see, the main thrust of your contributions to this particular debate have been to exaggerate and to set up straw men to argue against.

So you must carry documentation to prove that you are not commiting fraud or conspiring to commit fraud?
Presumption of innocence goes out of the window.

No, you carry documentation (or, more likely, keep documentation easily available) so that if a need arises to show who you are, you can easily do so. And more to the point, so that other people who wish to hide their identities in order to commit crimes are less likely to be able to do so.

You become little more than a serf who must serve the glorious state.

This kind of ridiculous misrepresentation is really not worthy of any reply.

The destruction of major civil liberties and the creation of one of the building blocks of a police state is not an emotive topic?

Destruction of civil liberties? Police state?!?!? Please try and get a bit real here. There is NO civil liberty that would be removed by having ID cards, other than the completely trivial, insignificant, thing of having to keep a bit of plastic in your possession. You would still be able to express all the opinions that you currently can, travel to the same places, be able to freely associate with whomever you wish, still be able form relationships with whomever you wish, still get the same jobs, live in the same places, watch the same tv programs. In other words, every single meaningful civil liberty you have in the UK would remain completely intact. There seems to be no reality in what you're posting in this debate.

You mean those CCTV cameras which have video quality so poor that they are useless for the kind of operations you are suggesting would be carried out using your new fangled ID database.

So would you find CCTV in banks terrifying if they had higher resolutions?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Re CCTV facial recognition will very soon pose a massive civil liberties issue.

 

[HSTEd]

Oh do stop being so ridiculous! You're completely misrepresenting the arguments for ID cards, and over-exaggerating what any likely law would be.

Usually you argue quite reasonably on these forums. But as far as I can see, the main thrust of your contributions to this particular debate have been to exaggerate and to set up straw men to argue against.

You are the one who is claiming that the only person who would be upset at having to present papers to the police on demand is a criminal who wants to conceal their identity.

No, you carry documentation (or, more likely, keep documentation easily available) so that if a need arises to show who you are, you can easily do so. And more to the point, so that other people who wish to hide their identities in order to commit crimes are less likely to be able to do so.

I am not sure how having to present papers to a policeman is going to help prevent crime, unless you give policemen some method of biometrically analysing you in the field. Otherwise they can just present a stolen card of someone with a similar appearance, and that is excluding things like the Jackal Run.
Which has all sorts of it's own civil liberties problems associated with it.

Destruction of civil liberties? Police state?!?!? Please try and get a bit real here. There is NO civil liberty that would be removed by having ID cards, other than the completely trivial, insignificant, thing of having to keep a bit of plastic in your possession.

The liberty of not being required to identify yourself to the state to be allowed to go about your lawful business?
Given the repeated cases of police abusing their powers, including to assist in the blacklisting of workers who have the temerity to engage in workplace organisation - making it even easier for the police to take the names of dissidents is foolhardy in the extreme.

So would you find CCTV in banks terrifying if they had higher resolutions?

Yes, yes I would.

 

[najaB]

The liberty of not being required to identify yourself to the state to be allowed to go about your lawful business?

What is it about the British that would make us unable to handle ID cards without descent into a police state? The majority of western democracies seem to handle it pretty well. Honest question.

 

[AlterEgo]

It’s rather depressing to see we’ve imported a lot of the “distrust the state” nincompoop mentality from the USA.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s rather depressing to see we’ve imported a lot of the “distrust the state” nincompoop mentality from the USA.

I think it is fair to say that the State often doesn’t help itself to avoid that.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It’s rather depressing to see we’ve imported a lot of the “distrust the state” nincompoop mentality from the USA.

And when councils are (ab)using anti-terrorism legislation to spy on people putting the wrong bin out, it's hardly a surprise.

I've worked with enough council officers and DWP officials to not trust them with anything.

As for the police, they've pretty conclusively proven themselves entirely untrustworthy.

 

[HSTEd]

What is it about the British that would make us unable to handle ID cards without descent into a police state? The majority of western democracies seem to handle it pretty well. Honest question.

The majority of current-western democracies have gone through many more excursions into police state territory than the British.

 

[headshot119]

But thats where I said should be improved....now admittedly I don't know what it would take but a drivers license is just a bit of plastic and retailers are happy to accept those.

Drivers licenses are much harder to "fake", if you know what to look out for in terms of the security features, though I have seen some fairly good ones over the years.

The easiest thing to do would be eliminate the pass scheme, and issue a drivers license with no class of vehicles, on a nice red bit of plastic, under the existing scheme. There's already a good system in place to verify identity before issue.

I'm not too bothered whether I need to carry ID or not, if I leave the house I always have my wallet with me which has my driving license, and I go abroad so much to countries where you have to carry ID it's second nature to me already.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

27% of the eligible population do not have a driving licence (2010 figures, latest I can find).
17% of the population (England and Wales, 2011 Census) do not have a passport.
How much overlap there is between the 27% and 17% groups I can find no research but I guess they are not entirely separate.
** correction** So somewhere up to 17% between 27% and 44% of the population would be required to obtain this new ID document, plus those ineligible for a driving licence (under-age). Just for the satisfaction of someone's obsession with knowing who absolutely everyone is.

What are the proven benefits for the introduction of some form of ID card? If they are of such enormous benefit, then they should be issued free-of-charge.

Why should I have to prove who I am to any person that asks? Why do National Express require photo ID to travel on one of their coaches. Why do Premier Inn require photo ID to stay in one of their hotels? What next, the supermarket self-service till analysing my basket and telling me off for buying full fat milk instead of skimmed, too many cakes and not enough fresh fruit & veg?

EDIT. Fundamental flaw in my maths there! The 27% and 17% are not added together. Rather, potentially 17% of the population have neither driving licence nor passport. Plus all the under 17's. 44% may have one but not the other - if the groups were wholly exclusive, but there will be overlap.