Security needs more data, not less
Former Home Secretary David Blunkett defends his ID cards scheme in the letters page of the Times:
The BBC reported on Wednesday that a “minister” had said that ID cards could not survive this debacle. Of course, a clean and therefore robust biometric identity base is not the issue here. This is simply a diversion by those who have never wanted ID cards anyway, and who do not appear to have ever understood them.
The database is simply about identity — not about the plethora of information that already rests elsewhere. It will actually make it easier to protect your identity, including in circumstances such as these where information has gone missing. This is because it gives an absolutely robust form of identification that stops other people being able to pretend that they are you, simply because they’ve got hold of some of your personal details. It will allow a proper check to be made between your own biometric and that held on the database, giving greater protection.
That so few people understand this is the problem that government faces in persuading people that such a system will be better then any other, precisely because it will be robust, efficient and verifiable.
November 23rd, 2007 at 12:17
Well, it’s nice to know that I only oppose biometric ID cards because I don’t understand, not because continued data breaches by government have demonstrated the irrelevance of biometric safeguards.
Once the information is collated, it matters not a jot how robust, efficient and verifiable the ID card is: it only needs one weak link somewhere to be a massive vulnerability.
If he honestly believes it is imply about identity, he’s a fool.
November 23rd, 2007 at 15:22
Blunkett only wants this unwanted scheme to continue for one reason only!He has got financial links to a company which is bidding for contracts for the I.D card scheme.Another so called socialist prepared to sell his soul for blood money!
November 23rd, 2007 at 17:25
Why would anyone trust any mutterings from Blunkett? Like all Nu-labour Ministers (or ex-ministers) he wouldn’t know the truth if it bit his arse! Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this the man who was forced to resign TWICE fron a Ministerial position?
More than ever the public are beginning to realize that this government cannot be trusted with ANY personal data. Presumably, thanks to the Inland Revenue, my wife’s name and address, my daughter’s details and our bank account details are now out there in the public domain. Why should we trust our personal details to any government department ever again?
Identity cards? Shove them up your arse!
November 23rd, 2007 at 20:18
I do not like id cards that is true. I remember reading The rise and Fall of the Third Reich when I was 17 or 18 at school for A level. I remember there is a passage which talks about the Prussian nation and its militarism and the ordered society they all believed in with marching days for post men, etc. Brown has a similar streak in him — everyone should have a union jack in his garden. I have heard it said that if you are really British then you should want to tell everyone who you are and have only one identity. What have you got to hide etc. The disc fiasco will run and run though attempts will be made to spin it — the discs are still on govt. premises, etc. It has always been the law in Britain that you can call yourself what you like. But, with the id cards you will be forever limited to just one id. What happens if you change your name. What about women who want to just walk away from a bad relationship. When you present yourself for work in a new town and you call yourself your new name your card will still have your old name. Do you have to apply to the police for a new name to get away from your partner. How early do you apply — hours or days or weeks. How long can you have 2 cards for in order to adjust to your new life, even if that will be allowed at all. Gordon Brown said a while ago that he had proved that the id scheme can be managed without any problems of civil liberties. Proved? is a big word in this instance. To whom has he proved this. Not to me. Won’t direct debits on your bank accounts be noted. Won’t those to political parties be noted. Are you telling me David Blunkett that you are so stupid that this had not occurred to you. Surely this would give a person logging them silently by the machine a good way of attempting to work out the result of an election. Surely this fundamentally undermines the concept of a secret ballot at a general election. I could go on. Blunkett is blind in many ways. No good will come of these id cards. I fear that there will be a knee jerk reaction by the ruling party which appears now to think that it rules forever in the name and for the good of the people. A good example of this is that all the families who lost data are going to have a special letter which will of course be used for smoothing ruffled feathers — cheap canvassing before an election under the guise of informing people and allaying their fears. Andy Burnham once said rather forcefully “Look, no one has a right to privacy.” What are people up in arms about now over the discs — that’s right privacy. Perhaps too late in the day those who said what have you got to hide have realised just how much labour has undercut traditional privacy values in Britain.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:43
Is it correct that Blunkett is being retained by a US company that hopes to benefit from ID Card production? If so, why doesn’t he say so?