ID cards: bad news is good news
So the projected costs of the ID scheme have shot up by around £850m in the last six months. Clearly this is not a sum to be sniffed at, even in government terms. But, apart from the numbers, the most striking thing about the six-monthly cost report from the ID and Passport Service is that all the extra money seems to be going to go on staffing.
Not only has the number of people needed to do the enrollment and checking in the scheme's early years been increased, but there are now also plans to keep hold of existing staff 'until the improved systems made available by the National Identity Scheme are fully implemented'.
It sounds pretty sensible to me.
There are two choices. Either do it properly. Or do not do it all.
Though the technology itself undoubtedly plays a part, ensuring that there are enough people to manage the eye-watering logistics will be crucial. And if the IPS can curb the government's tendency to try to cut staff numbers before new technology and ways of working are established, the project stands considerably more chance of success.
Meanwhile, as the costs rise and an already-sceptical public becomes ever more wary, it is up to the government to explain, in words of one syllable, why an ID scheme is worth the money. So far that case has not been made.
The ID card project should be stopped and stopped now. The main reason is that there is no official relationship between the citizen and the state (i.e. a constitution). Many countries which have ID cards or similar schemes have these agreements in place to prevent current of future Governments from abusing, misusing or expanding identity and related system too far.
Without a written constitution and clear and defined use of the card it will not work in anyones interest other than the police state. For a start we should be giving the ICO (Information Commissioner) wide and far reaching powers to constatnly monitor and scrutinse the use of the ID card and biometric technology. There should be harsh punishments for those who abuse the system, such as long prison sentences for company directors where the details are misused or home office officials.
The way the ID card is being proposed at the moment allows the Government to di with it as it pleases, connect it to health systems, private companies, DNA database (also being proposed for the entire nation). Let us spend some time (years) and debate, discuss and really get a grip of the consequenses of ID cards, database state and biometric technology. DNA isn't perfect, fingerprints will only work on a database smaller than 6 million records.
Can we trust private companies to access this system, look at recent cases with TK/TJ Maxx, Monster etc.. losing details.
The ID card also represents a dangerous change of relationship between Government officials, the police and the public which is why PM Winston Churchill dispensed with the post war WW2 ID card in is "bonfire of controls".
Lets face it, it is not the job of the state to interfere and monitor the activity of citizens on a day to day basis, it is time the state took a step back away from interference.
Posted by: Ben Rattigan | Thursday, 06 September 2007 at 05:19 PM
I agree with some sort of national id, I just think that everyone is thinking inside the box. I don't like how they think they would implement it, and I think that some constitutional rights may be treaded on.
Posted by: Business Cards New York | Friday, 07 March 2008 at 07:14 PM