Identity Crisis
By H.L. Graham
Monday 28th September 2009
Monday 28th September 2009
British Home Secretary Alan Johnson recently unveiled the new £30 biometric ID cards which the government hopes will provide an easy and secure way of proving identity, helping to combat fraud, crime and terrorism. Holding a variety of data including two fingerprints and a photograph encoded onto an embedded chip, the cards will be linked to a national identity register which could contain even more information about the cardholder’s identity.
With this launch of the latest stage of the UK’s extensive identity card scheme, opposition politicians and civil liberties groups alike are voicing renewed concern over the implications of the highly controversial plan. Issues ranging from cost to feasibility have been cited alongside accusations of disregard for civil liberties and police-state spying. While lobbyists are up in arms over the plan, the majority of the general public remain either unaware or unconcerned about the extent of the plan. But should they be worried?
The Identity Cards Act of 2006 lists a startlingly broad range of data for possible inclusion on a national identity database, including ‘biometric data’ which could cover everything from facial dimensions to blood groups and DNA. Coupled with the proposed e-Borders scheme, under which UK citizens wishing to travel abroad would have to provide forty pieces of personal information (including phone numbers and credit card details) in order to leave their own country, the government is increasingly treating the population as ‘guilty until proven innocent’ - anathema to centuries of legal tradition. Given the intrusive nature of these plans, the general outlook for British civil liberties looks alarmingly bleak.
Though this statement may seem exaggerated, it is worth bearing in mind that historical precedent for this kind of thing was set in Soviet Russia, where citizens were routinely asked to provide identity papers and travel itineraries (if they were allowed to travel at all). Too extreme a comparison you say? Perhaps it is too extreme, but phrases such as “the slippery slope” and “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile” should suggest the danger of allowing our civil liberties to be eroded. Even if the present incumbent in government has no ill intent, what’s to say the government in 20 years will be as ‘trustworthy’? There is no way of knowing what the future holds, and it is decidedly naïve and immature to presume that “it’ll never happen here”. At the height of the Cold War with the USSR, British and American governments unequivocally condemned these kinds of restrictive measures as an affront to freedom, and yet now, on both sides of the Atlantic (the US has the REAL ID act), they are being openly embraced. How times change.
Security is frequently cited as reason to implement these schemes, yet given the government’s track record of ‘mislaying’ vast quantities of personal information stored on supposedly ‘secure’ databases, does it not seem dangerous that under the e-Borders scheme you would have to trust them with your credit card details? Indeed, the very notion that it is necessary to sacrifice certain liberties in order to insure security is an inherently dangerous one. Freedom is an absolute state - you either ‘are free’ or you ‘are not’- there is no middle ground, no compromise. Benjamin Franklin said “Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither and will lose both”. Perhaps there was never a truer word said.
With this launch of the latest stage of the UK’s extensive identity card scheme, opposition politicians and civil liberties groups alike are voicing renewed concern over the implications of the highly controversial plan. Issues ranging from cost to feasibility have been cited alongside accusations of disregard for civil liberties and police-state spying. While lobbyists are up in arms over the plan, the majority of the general public remain either unaware or unconcerned about the extent of the plan. But should they be worried?
The Identity Cards Act of 2006 lists a startlingly broad range of data for possible inclusion on a national identity database, including ‘biometric data’ which could cover everything from facial dimensions to blood groups and DNA. Coupled with the proposed e-Borders scheme, under which UK citizens wishing to travel abroad would have to provide forty pieces of personal information (including phone numbers and credit card details) in order to leave their own country, the government is increasingly treating the population as ‘guilty until proven innocent’ - anathema to centuries of legal tradition. Given the intrusive nature of these plans, the general outlook for British civil liberties looks alarmingly bleak.
Though this statement may seem exaggerated, it is worth bearing in mind that historical precedent for this kind of thing was set in Soviet Russia, where citizens were routinely asked to provide identity papers and travel itineraries (if they were allowed to travel at all). Too extreme a comparison you say? Perhaps it is too extreme, but phrases such as “the slippery slope” and “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile” should suggest the danger of allowing our civil liberties to be eroded. Even if the present incumbent in government has no ill intent, what’s to say the government in 20 years will be as ‘trustworthy’? There is no way of knowing what the future holds, and it is decidedly naïve and immature to presume that “it’ll never happen here”. At the height of the Cold War with the USSR, British and American governments unequivocally condemned these kinds of restrictive measures as an affront to freedom, and yet now, on both sides of the Atlantic (the US has the REAL ID act), they are being openly embraced. How times change.
Security is frequently cited as reason to implement these schemes, yet given the government’s track record of ‘mislaying’ vast quantities of personal information stored on supposedly ‘secure’ databases, does it not seem dangerous that under the e-Borders scheme you would have to trust them with your credit card details? Indeed, the very notion that it is necessary to sacrifice certain liberties in order to insure security is an inherently dangerous one. Freedom is an absolute state - you either ‘are free’ or you ‘are not’- there is no middle ground, no compromise. Benjamin Franklin said “Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither and will lose both”. Perhaps there was never a truer word said.
