Of course, that was last millennium. Not this one. Not the 21st century and new Labour’s innovative vision of joined up broadband government. Wasn’t it?

Now, as a passenger, I’m delighted if the Government values my time: I’d like to see more of it too. However, the lack of supporting evidence elsewhere keeps me sceptical.

It is an interesting question as to whether biometrics can be made worthwhile overall (sufficiently accurate and sufficiently cost-effective) at this time for unsupervised identity checks at borders (even if just of registered frequent travellers). However, actively choosing to slug identification performance in this way (use of one-to-many matching) is surely not the way to go about it.

The issue is, perhaps, one of enamourment with technology, rather than rational engagement: so nothing new there then!

Best regards

I have added it to my collection of biometrics stories.

This collection is available to anyone requiring evidence of the (un)reliability of the biometrics the Home Office have chosen for ePassports and ID cards.

Too often, the Home Office give the impression that these biometrics are nearly 100% reliable. They aren’t.

Too often, campaigners sell the pass by acceding in that impression. The fear isn’t that we can all be authoritatively identified by our biometrics. To campaign on that basis is to grant the Home Office’s 100% claim.

The real outrage is that these biometrics don’t identify us reliably. The money spent on them is wasted.

These matters are discussed at some length in dematerialised ID, which I commend to you. (The material in that link is copyrighted and I would ask anyone who uses it to give a citation.)

Biometrics are not a minor bolt-on to the ID cards schemes proposed for the UK and other countries. They are an essential component and a critique of biometrics is therefore an important part of the general campaign against ID cards.