Robin Wilton's esoterica

« UK ID Card Bill...... | Main | Paradigm shift... »

28 Jun · Tue 2005

Do I have to carry the card...?

My colleague Chris Gerhard has raised concerns about whether the UK ID Card Bill requires one to carry the card. Charles Clarke seemed adamant this morning that it actually rules that out - so I thought I had better have a look. Section 18 of the bill actually prohibits anyone from requiring one to produce the card as a means of identifying oneself. Seems pretty clear-cut... except that, as usual, there is then a series of internal references to the exceptions to this rule, documented in other parts of the bill. I think these go as follows: Section 18 says that its own Subsection 2 sets out the exceptions. Subsection 2 says you can be obliged to identify yourself by producing your card if... it's for a reason set out in Section 15, OR you are offered a reasonable alternative way of identifying yourself (!?), OR if you are "the kind of person who is subject to compulsory registration". So let's follow the trail. Section 15 says that you can be obliged to identify yourself by producing your card IF the person asking you to do so is asking because they are then going to provide you with some (public) service. In other words, service provision can be made conditional on identifying yourself. There will be services you cannot have if you choose to remain anonymous. That's interesting, because I believe you cannot normally be required to forfeit a constitutional right for contractual purposes... (but I'd have to ask a lawyer). So clearly the government believes we do not have a constitutional right to anonymity. I think this provision fails to recognise the clear difference between "asserting my identity" and "asserting my citizenship" - whereas I think it is quite possible to assert my citizenship without having to reveal my identity. The European Commission's policy is much more citizen (and privacy) friendly in this regard, as are a substantial number of other European countries. But back to the trail: it seems very odd to say "you may be obliged to identfy yourself by producing your card IF you are offered an alternative and reasonable way of identifying yourself", and yet that's exactly what Section 18(2)(b) seems to say. It's hard to read it any other way. Finally, the Home Secretary can define "a description of individuals" who can be obliged to register for an ID card... and anyone who falls into such a category can then be required to produce their card. Sections 6 and 7 of the Bill describe what he has to go through in terms of parliamentary oversight in order to define such a category. Clear? Phew... Technorati Tag:identity

Posted by racingsnake @ 03:21 PM GMT+00:00 [ Comments [1] ]

Comments:

And there is the rub.

In the next anti terrorism bill the Home Secratary just defines the desciptions of individuals as "anyone the Police can reasonably suspect of being involved in or supporting terrorist acts" and we all then can be stopped and asked for our cards.

Since the last anti terrorism bill is now used to Police non terrorist threats, like demonstrations, I hardly feel that we can assume that the authorites should be trusted to follow the the spirit of the legeslation, even if the spirit was one that support civil liberties, which is does not.

The good news is that the Papers seem to be turning against this one so lets hope the costs escalate giving the government an excuse to drop the idea.

Posted by Chris Gerhard on June 28, 2005 at 05:14 PM GMT+00:00 #

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
« December 2009
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

Today