The ID card 'tsar' gets royalty treatment from the pro-ID hack

Angela Epstein is not one of Big Brother Watch's favourite people. For those unaware, she is a reporter on the Manchester Evening News and wrote one of the most crass and ill-informed articles on the ID card project last year for her newspaper (which, incredibly, included the line: ‘I personally can’t see what there is to lose if you’re a law abiding citizen with nothing to hide’).

Her latest transgression is to be honoured with an interview with the so-called ID card 'tsar' Sir Joseph Pilling - also known as the Orwellian 'National Identity Commissioner' - and give him a ride so easy, that she completely ignores the following comment:

“I am personally neutral - and I do understand why those who haven`t followed every aspect of the debate may find it difficult to see why we are having them, particularly since they are voluntary.”

Well, Sir Jo, I have followed every aspect of this debate and I not only find it difficult to see why ID cards are still around, I find them incredibly intrusive, morally reprehensible and hugely over-expensive.

What is more they may currently be voluntary but, as even Ms Epstein's article makes clear:

From 2011, British citizens aged 16 or over who apply for a passport will automatically be registered on the national identity database, which contains personal details including fingerprints and facial scans.

So, despite explicitly stating that the scheme isn't voluntary (and ignoring the condescension), Epstein ends by letting Pilling restate the fact he is neutral, before tickling his chin and calling him a proud northerner.

The National Identity Commissioner's 3 month interim report on ID cards is presented to Parliament today. We await the results with interest.

By Dylan Sharpe

Comments

[Alex Deane]

If you've got nothing to hide, why do you have curtains?

[alastair]

Personally my objection to them is that they're doing them wrong and wasting far too much money in the process.

The fact is we all carry lots of identity cards, every day of our lives. Credit cards, debit cards, bank cards, passports, driving licenses, National Insurance Number Cards, bus and rail passes, Oyster Cards and security passes, to name but a few.

One of the big problems we currently have is that organisations, both governmental and non-governmental, have to resort to using facts about us to allow us to prove our identity. This has led to the frankly ridiculous situation where it is necessary to keep things like one's name, date of birth, address, mother's maiden name and so on from being "public knowledge", when in actual fact all of it is already public information and can be looked up for a modest fee in government records.

A carefully designed identity card scheme could usefully do two things:

1. Allow third parties to store their own identifier (by which I mean a number) on the card, so that we can get rid of all of the other cards in our wallets (this does *NOT* equate to letting third parties obtain identifying data that they haven't already been given, I must emphasise; it just provides a means for them to tie the data they *do* have to the card you carry with you, so you can use it as e.g. a credit card or your security pass for your workplace in addition to any other functions).

Nobody should be able to retrieve any identifier that they did not put there themselves. So government shouldn't be able to get the data stored there by your bank, and vice-versa. Maybe it should go further than that even, and restrict government departments from accessing each others' identifiers.

Further, it should be possible for the owner of the card to view a list of organisations who have stored data on their card, and in most cases to remove that data.

2. Provide a canonical identity document, thus avoiding the need for banks and so on to use facts about us (which are easy to find) as if they were some kind of secret identifying information.

However, in order to do all of this, it needs to be universal, and there shouldn't be a separate charge for getting one.

It should also not be something that we are required by the state to carry with us, or, except when apprehended for committing some kind of non-minor offence, to present on demand to a police officer. (Note, however, that even if the state did require these two things, I bet most of the people who would complain, including Alex and Dylan doubtless, carry plenty of credit cards and so on, providing more than enough information should the state find some excuse to rifle through their possessions.)

So while I see myself as a liberal conservative and want the state to keep its nose out of our daily lives, I actually don't see that there should be a problem with ID cards in general - but this current scheme is one I don't support.

[Simon Evans]

When Sir Joseph Pilling was appointed I wrote to him asking for some assurances about the protection of citizens' individual rights. I received a bland reply which showed that he is a dyed in the wool civil servant (he worked in the Home Office for many years) who has thought long and hard about his job. He refuses to get involved in any discussion about right or wrong, or about the operations of other laws. His only concern, as he cheerfully says, is to make sure that the provisions of the Identity Cards Act are obeyed. When I asked him about removing entries from the National Identity Register of an individual who elected no longer to have a passport and/or ID card he merely said it was an interesting question into which he would look. He has not got back to me so I imagine he is still looking.

The current ID card system is monolithic and built around the concept that only the state can guarantee to prove who we are. It does not allow for remote or electronic verification or identification and is manifestly useless as a modern ID system (which needs neither mammoth databases nor Sir Joseph Pillings).