Twice in the last few days I've heard arguments put forward to justify ID Cards which really ought not still to be being used.
The first was from Chancellor Alistair Darling, who said (in the Today programme interview I blogged about earlier) that ID Cards and biometrics were needed 'in order to protect people against identity fraud'.
Isn't that a bit like passing a law which makes it illegal to leave your front door unlocked? I mean, yes, it's sensible to lock your front door, and most people appreciate that, but is legislation really appropriate? Ultimately, if someone wishes to leave their front door unlocked, however foolish that may seem, isn't it a matter for them? The consequences, should they be burgled and then have an insurance claim rejected, are well understood, and people exercise their options on a well-informed basis.
The second was a quotation from Sir David Varney, cited in this article in the Daily Telegraph. In it, as part of the case for ID Cards, he says:
"The thinking is entirely logical - it is, Sir David argues, ludicrous
that somebody has to contact 44 bits of the state when a relative dies.
Members of the iPod generation want to be able to download public
services at their own convenience, just as they personalise their music
collection. And if Tesco can send special offers to particular
customers, using the information gained through its Clubcard, then the
Government should also be able offer relevant services to its citizens."
The analogy is perhaps more telling than he intended. It is, after all, a matter of consumer choice whether or not someone decides to have a supermarket loyalty card. If they decide to do so, it is a matter of choice whether they opt to receive otherwise unsolicited offers from the supermarket, and a matter of choice whether they act on those offers.
The element of choice is conspicuously missing from Sir David's description of a joined-up future, and for someone in his strategic role, I find that startling. It may well be 'ludicrous' that someone has to notify 44 different state organs when a relative dies - but Sir David is reaching one conclusion about the best solution, where other citizens might reach another, based on their own preferences.
I think it's key to distinguish, here, between the law-enforcement aspects of 'joined-up government' (and the due attention which must be paid to the recommendations of the Bichard Report and so on) and the service-delivery aspects of joined-up government. In the latter, the informed consent of the citizen is surely a vital design principle.
![[RSS Newsfeed]](/themes/sotto/images/valid-rss.png)
![[This is a Roller site]](/themes/sotto/images/roller-logo.gif){kind=logo}
My Dad, who was most certainly not of the iPod generation and therefore presumably outsude the scope of ID cards as Sir David Varney sees them, left us four years ago at the age of 91. I don't remember telling more than about two bits of the state of his departure.
I think 44 is a scare figure designed to 'justify' ID cards, and is probably about twice the maximum number of state organizations who would have to be informed if every possible circumstance applied to the deceased.
Posted by John Sandell on November 27, 2007 at 01:29 PM GMT+00:00 #