Posted by racingsnake
@ 01:00 PM GMT+00:00
27 Jun · Mon 2005
UK ID Cards Bill goes to Parliament
Tomorrow (June 28th 2005), the UK ID Card Bill will go before parliament.
Today, the London School of Economics (LSE) publicly launched its report on the ID Card proposals. Here's a link to their summary web-page .
I have copied several quotations from the 'overview' version of the report, below.
One of the most telling comments in the report is perhaps also one of the more oblique:
"There is a surprising degree of agreement between the findings of this report and the conclusions of the Home Affairs Committee on the draft Identity Cards Bill. This report agrees in whole or part with 79 of the 85 relevant recommendations in the HAC report (these are set out in detail in Appendix 1). This concurrence is a crucial test of the strength and validity of both reports."
Now, if you look at the HAC report, it is in favour, in principle, of an ID Card scheme, but makes dozens of recommendations as to how the draft Bill should be amended. 63, to be precise. I know that, because those nice people at Privacy International counted them for me... ;^) You can find PI's analysis here. It may depress you, because they note that of the 63 recommendations, two were adopted and three partially adopted - in other words, 92% were ignored.
In case you suspect that's because the HAC's report was simply unrepresentative, PI's analysis also notes the following:
"Prior to the general election the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Constitution Committee, the Home Affairs Committee and the London School of Economics each published authoritative reports that analysed the original Bill. In total, these reports contained 105 concerns and recommendations that were critical of the original Bill. The government has adopted or partially reflected 9 of those 105 recommendations in the wording of the new Bill."
So what kind of things does the LSE report say? Here are some quotations, which I will admit are selective; but I challenge you to read the report and conclude that they are un-representative:
"The report's conclusions are first, that, the scheme will involve considerable expenditure. Second, the proposals will alter the nature of British society. The proposals involve important choices that necessitate a wide ranging national dialogue. The LSE's report is an important contribution to that dialogue.
The report also outlines a possible alternative system that promises to be flexible, less expensive and as friendly to civil liberties and privacy as any card system can be in the modern age. It also creates a consumer based platform for the development of egovernment and e-commerce services."
Howard Davies, Director, LSE
(Howard Davies ought to know something about the enforcement of complex policies - he was the first head of the Financial Services Authority, a body set up to unify regulation and enforcement across the whole UK financial services industry).
"I have expressed my unease that the current proposal to establish a national identification system is founded on an extensive central register of personal information controlled by government and is disproportionate to the stated objectives behind the introduction of ID cards.
I am pleased that [the LSE] report has been able to identify a blueprint for a national identity system that does not involve the creation of an extensive central register and government held data trail of each time a card is used. The report makes clear that a system which minimises the amount of personal information generated and held by the government on card holders can be established without sacrificing the essential attributes of security, reliability and trust in the system."
Richard Thomas, Information Commissioner
(Richard Thomas ought to know something about the implications of the ID Card Bill - he's currently the head of the body responsible for monitoring the Data Protection and Freedom of Information Acts in operation.)
From the summary report itself:
"The risk of failure in the current proposals is therefore magnified to the point where the scheme should be regarded as a potential danger to the public interest and to the legal rights of individuals."
And are ID Cards the answer to the problem? (Bearing in mind that the Information Commissioner considers it to be disproportionate).
"The Report does not challenge or debate the principles that underpin the proposals. The goals of combating terrorism, reducing crime and illegal working, reducing fraud and strengthening national security are accepted a priori as legitimate responsibilities of government. The report does, however, challenge assumptions that an identity card system is an appropriate, safe and cost-effective way to achieve those goals."
Well, that depends what you mean by 'problem'...
"There is no evidence to support the use of identity fraud as a justification for the current identity card model."
"Benefit fraud through false identity is relatively rare and we believe the cost of introducing an identity card in the benefits environment would far outweigh any savings that could be made."
... and what you mean by 'answer':
"From a security perspective, the approach to identity verification outlined in the Identity Cards Bill is substantially, perhaps fatally flawed. In consequence, the National Identity Register may itself pose a far larger risk to the safety and security of UK citizens than any of the problems that it is intended to address."
That aside - is it legal?
The LSE report summary cites 9 instances where the Bill may contravene or infringe on existing legal rights, including the following:
"EU Directive 68/360 governing the rights and conditions of entry and residence for workers may make it unlawful for the government to require non-UK EU citizens to obtain a UK identity card as a condition of residence."
The report also notes that:
"The Government has consistently asserted that that biometrics proposals, both in the new UK passport format and in the identity cards legislation, is a harmonising measure required by international obligations, and is thus no different to the plans and intentions of the UK s international partners. There is no evidence to support this assertion. We find that the Government is unnecessarily binding the identity card scheme to internationally recognised requirements on passport documents.
By doing so, the Government has failed to correctly interpret international standards, generating unnecessary costs, using untested technologies and going well beyond the measures adopted in any other country that seeks to meet international obligations. Even in countries with identity cards, numerous safeguards prevent the development of a system similar to the one proposed here."
Most of the headlines on this today have been about the projected costs, but as I've mentioned those in a previous post, I won't re-iterate the argument.
All in all, it is hard to find any way of interpreting this as a well-thought out piece of legislation deserving of the support and trust of an adequately informed public.
Technorati Tag:identity
- Blogroll
- Alan Mather
- Alec Muffett
- Bill Vass
- Bill Walker
- Burningbird
- CPO - Michelle Dennedy
- Conor Cahill... has an opinion or two
- Consult Hyperion
- Don't Panic - Trust blog
- Eric Mahe
- Eve Maler
- Geoff Arnold
- Gerry Beuchelt
- Greg Matters
- Hubert Le Van Gong
- Ideal Government
- John Sandell's Photography
- Kim Cameron
- Lauren Wood
- Ludovic Poitou
- Mark Dixon
- Masood Mortazavi
- Monkchips - James Governor
- New Drew...
- Oz Yigit's brainstorms
-
POSIWID
- Paul Walker's Getting His Coat...
- Peter Davis
- PlanetIdentity
- Stefan Brands
- Superpat
- Tatsuo-san
- Tim Bray
- Toby Stevens
- Tom Gordon
- Vikram Kumar (NZ)
- Wayne Horkan's eclectic
![[RSS Newsfeed]](/themes/sotto/images/valid-rss.png)
![[This is a Roller site]](/themes/sotto/images/roller-logo.gif){kind=logo}