Latest unwarranted privacy violation

The Daily Telegraph reports that the travel plans and personal details of everyone leaving Britain are to be tracked by the Government. Under the "e-borders" scheme, they intend to make it a criminal offence not to submit, in advance of every trip, personal information such as passport and credit card details, home and email addresses and exact travel plans. This is already starting to happen.

The kind of thing that e-borders enables is illustrated by this story, which shows that you could be stopped from leaving the country if you have unpaid parking fines or indeed any other mark against your name. What are the chances that before the year is out, we'll be reading stories about innocent people trying to travel abroad who get arrested at the airport or sea port thanks to some mix-up?

With developments like these, it's hard to believe that we are not living in a police state.

BALPA refuses to co-operate with ID card scheme

Well done, the British Airline Pilots Association. It has refused to co-operate with the odious National ID register, as reported in The Times. I especially enjoyed reading BALPA's clear views on the insidious methods the Government has chosen to bring in the ID cards:

"It is clear that the Government's staged introduction of biometric identity cards first to overseas students, then to migrant workers and then for aviation workers, represents a way of picking off what are seen as easy targets."

It'll be interesting to see what the Home Office chooses to do next. They can't afford to be seen to back down in the face of such a challenge to their "authority", yet they can't force airlines to sack valuable staff. So I expect that a technical pretext will be found for not requiring the airline pilots to carry the cards after all, and the department will go after another softer target first.

It is beyond me why the Government keeps on trying to introduce this scheme. The Tories and LibDems have both pledged to scrap the whole thing as soon as Labour is voted out of office, which only gives them a couple more years at most to push it through. Sadly, the stubborn and unimaginative lot currently in power are likely to waste hundreds of millions of pounds of our money on this folly before it is finally sunk.

Government security experts express concerns about ID Card scheme

In today’s Observer, it is revealed that the Government’s own security experts are worried about Labour’s plans to introduce mandatory ID cards. Here are some choice quotes:

"In a potentially damaging revelation, which undermines claims that the scheme will enhance national security, the group has concluded that [ID cards] will be prone to corruption...

"The Isap report goes on to warn that the scheme may not be embraced by government departments, suggesting the cards are not being well received in some Whitehall departments.

"The panel also warns the initiative is struggling to fulfil its remit. It states that the scheme lacks a ‘robust and transparent operational data governance regime and clear data architecture’, suggesting there is confusion over its roll-out."

BCS survey underlines laxity of Government data protection

As if more evidence were needed for the undesirability of a Government-run national identity register, Channel 4 News reported last night that a British Computer Society survey had demonstrated a total absence of data accuracy audits or data correction budgets in 14 out of 14 UK Government departments.

Other models for identity registration

A story appeared on Slashdot today comparing the UK and US identity database schemes with the Jukinet system that's been quietly running in Japan since 1992. Some of the responses are quite insightful and informative. People describe systems that exist in Bulgaria, Japan, Sweden, Norway and other places, each of which have some things to recommend them.

For me, I think the main lesson is that yes, my personal data is already held in many different databases, both of government agencies such as the tax authorities and of private companies such as my credit card issuer. However, data protection legislation exists explicitly to prevent anyone, government or private, misusing this data by combining disparate databases to build a "profile" of me as an individual and to use that to my advantage or disadvantage. I fundamentally object to paying a huge amount of money so that this government can ride roughshod over those rights of the citizen. It isn't so much a question of privacy, more of protecting the individual against the might of the state.

I quite like the idea of an identity service as something that people can subscribe to if they wish - much like the trust providers used in a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI). There should be a free market in personal authentication, just as there is on the Internet. This would drive down prices and encourage the development of value-added services.

Latest ID Register scam

In a desperate bid to ram through its controversial plans for a national identity register and the associated ID cards, the British government has announced yet another defenceless section of society to be targeted: students.

Not content with making university students pay over the odds for what are frequently sub-standard educational opportunities, the government now plans to "encourage" them to supply personal details including biometric data "voluntarily" in order to "help" them access educational services. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith claims that "young people who register for an ID card will find it easier to enrol on a course, apply for a student loan or open a bank account". The implication is that if they do not agree to register, they will find it hard or impossible to enrol on a course, get a student loan or open a bank account.

If that doesn't amount to coercion, I don't know what does. As a parent of two students currently at university, I feel very strongly about this. This is very reminiscent of the kind of vindictive tactics employed by the morally bankrupt East German government in the communist era. Moreover, the government expects to add me (an EU national resident and working in the UK) to its database automatically in a few years time "unless I opt out", which I certainly intend to do.

A series of high-profile security breaches recently proved that governments generally, and this one in particular, cannot be trusted to handle personal information securely or to refrain from using it as a means of coercion. The sausage-slicing approach it has adopted for introducing the scheme is evidence that it knows it faces a massive revolt if it were to apply the same rules to the whole population in one go. By bringing in the scheme in this sneaky, insinuating way, the government makes me more convinced than ever that its motivation for the identity register is anything but the publicly stated one of making us "confident that other people are who they say they are" - security experts have already shown that an ID card of the current design will be relatively easy to fake, so that pretext doesn't persuade me at all.

I don't normally subscribe to conspiracy theories but what else can you believe in the face of this government's announcements and actions?

London Mayoral Candidates and the National Identity Register

In late January or early February, I canvassed the candidates of major parties for the May 2008 election of the London Mayor, asking them to come out publicly with a statement that they would not co-operate with any national identity register (ID Cards) scheme if elected. I wrote:

I would like to know where the [your party here] candidate in the 2008 London Mayoral election stands regarding the national identity register. Will (s)he resist pressure to withhold services from people who do not have an identity card? The government intends to make the "voluntary" scheme effectively compulsory by making it impossible to get a new passport, driving licence etc. without an ID card. If London refuses to play the game, it will be doing its citizens a great service.

The Green party candidate, Siân Berry, responded with alacrity, saying that she had already signed the No2ID pledge in 2004 and was well known for her stand against the scheme (see http://camden.greenparty.org.uk/news/newsidcards.html and other sites). She goes on:

"I would not allow any services for Londoners to depend on the scheme, and would urge Londoners to resist the ID system individually as well.

You may also be interested in our Census Alert campaign to stop Lockheed Martin being given the contract to run the UK Census in 2011. This is a campaign I set up last year after finding out they were on the final shortlist, and there are now politicians from a wide range of parties supporting the cause. See www.censusalert.org.uk for more details."

So that's a result then.

The Liberal Democrat party's candidate, Brian Paddick, sent me a personal letter by snail mail, which arrived today, in which he states that he is totally opposed to the ID cards. From a former police officer, this comes as a nice surprise (except to those who have been following his campaign closely) and is in line with the national party's line as represented by Nick Clegg (see http://www.youtube.com/user/LibDem). Nick Clegg has publicly pledged to refuse to be registered, even if it means being taken to court.

Sadly, Brian Paddick did not go so far as to pledge that London would refuse to participate in any coercion by the Government to force people to join the scheme.

I didn't get any response from either the Conservative or (New?) Labour candidates or their representatives.

However, Conservative candidate Boris Johnson is on record as opposing the scheme - see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZAAzSzleWk.

Only Labour candidate Ken Livingstone is really letting the side down. According to an Andrew Marr interview mentioned on the NO2ID site, he actually supports the ID card scheme - see http://boardreader.com/t/Articles_Publications_150279/Andrew_Marr_Show_Ken_Livingstone_Intervi_19360.html.

I hope this helps you when it comes to making the decision in May!