ID Cards dead in the water!!!! Yippee!!!!

[Francesca R]

Now it is just a stupid and very expensive white elephant

It is possible to turn it into a rock concert venue and have some highly indebted (but otherwise healthy) aging superstar book 50 sell-out gigs in it?

 

[geni]

I would respectfully disagree, we could quite easily live under the American nuclear umbrella (which most of the world's 200 countries manage to do quite acceptably) without suddenly necessitating any Maginot line national defences to replace them.

Of the countries with comparible strategic interests and without nucklear weapons japan is starting to hit problems and germany has national service.

 

[Toke]

How does it differ from our system of numbering all citizents shortly after birth?
We are not expected to carry id papers expect at the doctor, and that is without picture.

 

[ddt]

Britain, leading the world in digital incompetence.

No. The Dutch public transport chip card:

The OV-chipkaart is based on Philips (currently NXP Semiconductors) Mifare technology. [...]The Mifare encryption algorithm (known as Crypto-1) is considered cracked nowadays.

Whoever has to use public transport regularly may consider his private data be compromised.

 

[Checkmite]

No. The Dutch public transport chip card:


Whoever has to use public transport regularly may consider his private data be compromised.

Which private data would that be, by the way? The person's name and the number of rides he has left?

 

[Fiona]

How does it differ from our system of numbering all citizents shortly after birth?
We are not expected to carry id papers expect at the doctor, and that is without picture.

We also give citizens a number in that way Toke, if I understand you correctly. It is called a national insurance number (NINO) and it is used to gain access to many services provided by government. As in your system this does not translate to identity papers, and while you will be asked for your NINO at various times that is specifically for a particular purpose: eg applying for state benefits or to register to pay tax when you take a job.

I do not think anyone is opposed to that system.

The ID card under discussion here is very different: it includes a picture and biometric data. A lot of data.

There is something very curious about this. The two major parties want to introduce this and it is not at all clear why. They have given a variety of reasons over many years and it seems to follow the moral panic of the day: for example in the early 80's it was suggested as a way of combating football hooliganism at home and abroad, because that was the big thing at the time which proved that the country was going to the dogs. That did not persuade people and it went dormant for a while: then it came up again when there was a big panic about benefit fraud: and again when terrorism was making people uneasy: and now as a means of combating identity fraud.

There does not seem to be any reason to suppose that ID cards will be a solution to any of those problems. Rather it seems that every time we go through one of these ridiculous fits the government wonders if that concern can be used to get us to accept them.

There was initially a very strong resistance to them and I suspect that this was partly because of the way identity papers came to be abolished: they were issued during the world war and then they just quietly continued afterwards until one man refused to comply. There was a famous case about it and this seems to have remained in the public consciousness for a long time

As with any idea, repeated exposure tends to habituate us and so ID cards are not so shocking nor so resisted as they used to be. Well actually, I take that back: for the moment I think there is strong resistance cos we have had a spate of various institutions losing loads of data, and this, amongst other things, seems to have put people off a bit. There is also principled resistance still, but not so much. It is quite curious how readily brits have accepted various intrusions into privacy especially those they have not seen before: for example we have CCTV cameras everywhere and those were introduced without consulatation or debate: much less a vote. I cannot account for the acceptance of those things really: but because of the history as well as the practical difficulty it has not been so easy to get ID cards through.

For me and others the concern I have is that I do not know why they want these things: unlike NINO's they do not seem to be for my benefit because there is no evidence that they will add very much to the existing system: the claimed benefits are not demonstrated: and the changes to the justifications for them do not exactly inspire confidence.

It is quite likely that the reason they follow the fear agenda is that government responds to media hype of that sort and it is a quick response to any such public concern: but the fact that they have gone so far as to start this process when no such moral panic was actually happening leads me to doubt that. It may be that government just always likes to have a lot of information and they, like much of the population, cannot really see a good reason why they should not have it. You often hear "those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear" when this issue is discussed: as if that was any kind of an argument at all!!

I am not generally distrustful of government and I do not readily see sinister agendas when I look around: but I have to confess that I would like to know the real reason this comes up so often and with so many pseudo justifications. It troubles me

 

[Squidgy]

One more reason to be happy today.

If not for the "orwellian" overtones.

But it is not over yet. Labour still plans to issue them in the near future. In the next election, my vote will go to the tories or the Lib Dems.

Gordon Brown is also dead in the water.

Yes, the unelected freemason is doomed. I expect we can look forward to a tory government next year...

 

[ddt]

Which private data would that be, by the way? The person's name and the number of rides he has left?

There are three versions: a throw-away version, an anonymous one which can be upgraded with more rides, and a personalized one. When you want a subscription for a certain trajectory, or other discounts, you need to use the personalized one.

The "OV chipkaart" website says only your birthdate is on the latter one, but that's obviously a lie. The personalized cards are tied to a centralized computer system which records all your public transport movements. The user will also be able to consult this on-line. Mind, this card is for the whole country and all train and bus/tram companies are going to use it.

This wiki from Nijmegen University lists the main problems with the system. The throw-away version has already been copied so well, that it gives an indefinite number of rides. Here's a page about cracking the chip that is at the heart of the personalized card, so it's only waiting for the actual card to be cracked.

I also remember that it was mentioned somewhere that the cards are not just readable from 10 cm, but more like a meter, so that it's easy for a black hat to go to a railway station and read the card of his intended victim.

 

[Checkmite]

There are three versions: a throw-away version, an anonymous one which can be upgraded with more rides, and a personalized one. When you want a subscription for a certain trajectory, or other discounts, you need to use the personalized one.

The "OV chipkaart" website says only your birthdate is on the latter one, but that's obviously a lie. The personalized cards are tied to a centralized computer system which records all your public transport movements. The user will also be able to consult this on-line. Mind, this card is for the whole country and all train and bus/tram companies are going to use it.

This wiki from Nijmegen University lists the main problems with the system. The throw-away version has already been copied so well, that it gives an indefinite number of rides. Here's a page about cracking the chip that is at the heart of the personalized card, so it's only waiting for the actual card to be cracked.

I also remember that it was mentioned somewhere that the cards are not just readable from 10 cm, but more like a meter, so that it's easy for a black hat to go to a railway station and read the card of his intended victim.

...and find out how many rides he has left?

 

[ddt]

We also give citizens a number in that way Toke, if I understand you correctly. It is called a national insurance number (NINO) and it is used to gain access to many services provided by government.

In the Netherlands, we've also got such a number. It started out in the 80s as "SoFi" (social/fiscal) number, for exclusive use by the tax office and social security. Now we've got a "BSN" ("Civil Service Number") which just happens to be identical to the previous SoFi number.

As in your system this does not translate to identity papers, and while you will be asked for your NINO at various times that is specifically for a particular purpose: eg applying for state benefits or to register to pay tax when you take a job.

My "BSN" number is printed prominently on my passport... (and thus also on Dutch ID-cards, which are essentially identical to the passports except for the paper booklet for the visa stamps).

The ID card under discussion here is very different: it includes a picture and biometric data. A lot of data.

Isn't this EU mandated - at least for passports?

In the Netherlands, we've had a gradual introduction of obligatory identification. Beginning 90s, it was introduced that you had to leave a copy of your ID with your employer - to combat evasion of payment of tax & social security; and you had to ID when you used public transport without paying. I don't know if it actually worked. Since 2005, we've had a general obligation of identification. I think we were the last in continental Europe to introduce it. The reasons given were likewise vague, but despite that obligatory ID had been a taboo in Dutch politics for about 50 years, the law passed. The greatest worry that was mentioned at the time - effective discrimination of immigrants, because they'd be asked more frequently for their ID - has not come true, AFAIK. Privacy issues have not been a broadly sounding issue in the discussion, despite Dutch history.

I am not generally distrustful of government and I do not readily see sinister agendas when I look around: but I have to confess that I would like to know the real reason this comes up so often and with so many pseudo justifications. It troubles me

While I'm not generally distrustful of this government either, I think that's too short-sighted. It's not how the current government behaves, or how the past did, or how the governments in the past 30 years behaved. It's how a government could behave with the given infrastructure. And this is the part where I, unfortunately, have to invoke Godwin.

In 1936, there was a civil servant, Jacobus Lambertus Lentz, who was tasked with improving the Dutch civil registry:

Lentz invented the ‘persoonskaart’ (’persons card’) to record all information about those people. That was not enough for Lentz, he wanted that everybody in The Netherlands should carry a identification card at all times. This was rejected by the Dutch government in March 1940, just before the invasion of The Netherlands by the Nazis. According to Dirk Jan de Geer, at the time prime minister of The Netherlands, the identification card would make everybody a potential criminal in the eyes of the government and this was not acceptable.

But Lentz got a second chance when the Germans arrived. He developed an identification card for the Nazis and in 1941 it became mandatory for everybody to carry it at all times. The card Lentz developed was high tech at the time. It had a fingerprint of the card holder on it and a special ink was used.

When he showed the Dutch ID card to the Gestapo HQ, they were mightily impressed. He had developed a (for the time) unfalsifiable ID card.

According to historian Loe de Jong, he did the Nazis a greater service with this than any other Dutchman. It helped the Nazis immensely in rounding up the Jews, and it also helped them get resistance fighters. When they arrested someone, and doubted his identity, they could compare the ID card with a copy that was kept in a central registry ("Huize Kleykamp") in the Hague. The RAF tried to bomb it, in spring 1944, but that was a very limited success.

So, while I don't believe that my current government will abuse the system, I am concerned what could be done with it - and how well the responsible civil servants, in a worst case scenario, will behave. Most people don't learn from history, unfortunately.

 

[applecorped]

"an absurd fudge"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8127081.stm

 

[richardm]

I had some garlic fudge once. That was pretty absurd.

I'm glad the plug is (about to be) pulled on this once and for all. I never liked the idea of ID cards, much less compulsory ones. And I had doubts that it would ever work on a practical level. Better to stop now before even more money gets wasted on it.

Mind you I would not be in the least bit surprised if the Tories revive the idea as an "Entitlement Licence" or some such nonsense. The idea seems irresistable to politicians.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Roll on 2010 and parliamentary oblivion for the neoliberals of new Labour.

Who exactly has the ability to take over from New Labour? The Etonians? The newly slap-bang-centrists of the Liberal Democrats?

 

[richardm]

The Etonians?

I'm afraid so.

 

[Fiona]

Isn't this EU mandated - at least for passports?

Apparently so. That makes it neither better nor worse IMO: I do not like it and I see no justification for it. But a passport is still something I can choose to have or not, because I do not have to travel abroad. It is still something which is made for a limited purpose. It is something I am thinking about. When my passport expires the new one will have some of this data and I am deeply uncomfortable with that. I would regret not being able to holiday abroad: but at present I am not sure where my personal balance lies.

In the Netherlands, we've had a gradual introduction of obligatory identification. Beginning 90s, it was introduced that you had to leave a copy of your ID with your employer - to combat evasion of payment of tax & social security; and you had to ID when you used public transport without paying. I don't know if it actually worked. Since 2005, we've had a general obligation of identification. I think we were the last in continental Europe to introduce it. The reasons given were likewise vague, but despite that obligatory ID had been a taboo in Dutch politics for about 50 years, the law passed. The greatest worry that was mentioned at the time - effective discrimination of immigrants, because they'd be asked more frequently for their ID - has not come true, AFAIK. Privacy issues have not been a broadly sounding issue in the discussion, despite Dutch history.

I am aware this is not confined to my country, though I had thought that ID cards of one sort or another were long standing items in continental europe. I am not particularly surprised to hear it is being extended and I am disappointed to know that there is little resistance there either. It is possible that the driver here is europe and not our own governments: I do not know. But if the justification in your country is also vague that does not reassure me, I confess. Is it not curious that a measure with this history and which was taboo not long ago has gone through with so little public discussion? I think it is

While I'm not generally distrustful of this government either, I think that's too short-sighted. It's not how the current government behaves, or how the past did, or how the governments in the past 30 years behaved. It's how a government could behave with the given infrastructure. And this is the part where I, unfortunately, have to invoke Godwin.

Certainly. While I do not know why our politicians want this. and I am not attributing any sinister intent, I do think we should have a very very strong case before we accept it for just the reasons you present. I do not think it is godwinning an issue when the nazi history brought in is directly relevant and is not directed at discrediting a position by poisoning the well: these things did happen and I am not so sanguine as to believe it can never happen agaiin

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Yet what do the Etonians stand for?

For one, can they continue Labour's revolutionary record on constitutional reform? Do they want to?

 

[Toke]

I may be a little inconsistant.
The idea of registrating all citizents are fine with me, but it feels wrong to have to carry around an idcard.

 

[ddt]

Apparently so. That makes it neither better nor worse IMO: I do not like it and I see no justification for it. But a passport is still something I can choose to have or not, because I do not have to travel abroad. It is still something which is made for a limited purpose. It is something I am thinking about. When my passport expires the new one will have some of this data and I am deeply uncomfortable with that. I would regret not being able to holiday abroad: but at present I am not sure where my personal balance lies.

My question that the biometric passport^WP is a EU obligation was not, in any way, meant as an endorsement. I'm not in the first place disturbed by the amount of data that's on it, but how it is secured and who will use it. The text on the wiki page shows this is again a classic case of "security through obscurity^WP", so security will be cracked eventually. Neither do I want that data to end up in law enforcement databases all around the world. My work does not allow me the choice of not having a passport, but I'm happy that I didn't have to travel to the USA, which already demands a much too wide set of private information from travellers. It would have been possible, btw, to set up the data exchange about airplane travellers between the EU and USA in such a way that the travellers would have been identified without divulging all their data. But politicians, unfortunately, don't listen to IT security experts. And I'm no IT security expert, but I can read and understand their papers.

I am aware this is not confined to my country, though I had thought that ID cards of one sort or another were long standing items in continental europe. I am not particularly surprised to hear it is being extended and I am disappointed to know that there is little resistance there either. It is possible that the driver here is europe and not our own governments: I do not know. But if the justification in your country is also vague that does not reassure me, I confess. Is it not curious that a measure with this history and which was taboo not long ago has gone through with so little public discussion? I think it is

Unfortunately, the general public is not very much interested in privacy issues. And on the continent, we're already accustomed to having a civil registry in the first place. I guess the slippery slope did the rest. Social security fraud (by employers) was a hot issue 20 years ago. So was fare evasion in public transport. And hooliganism. So requiring ID in those cases was no big issue. Still now, the police must have probable cause to ask for your ID. But it's a question of how long this will remain so. The fallacy "what's the problem if you don't have anything to hide" is heard a lot, and the Dutch population in particular is quite naive and trusting of its government. Which is reasonable with our "own" governments we've had, but...

I don't think Europe is the driver for the ID card trend; wiki lists various policies within the EU, including countries without obligatory ID (to correct my previous statement on this).

Certainly. While I do not know why our politicians want this. and I am not attributing any sinister intent, I do think we should have a very very strong case before we accept it for just the reasons you present. I do not think it is godwinning an issue when the nazi history brought in is directly relevant and is not directed at discrediting a position by poisoning the well: these things did happen and I am not so sanguine as to believe it can never happen agaiin

Calling it "godwinning" was more of a cover-my-ass on my part . I think part of the reason for this is "terrorism", and part of it is an idea that law enforcement in general can be more efficient. But then I'd like the government to show us a "business case" for this. How many terrorists do you predict you can catch? And how many people who now evade their 20 euro fine for biking without light by not ID-ing themselves (and thus possibly doing 48 hours at the police station), are there anyway?

In the Netherlands, we have a couple of these pervasive systems under discussion at the same time now. The discussion about the public transport card is quite low key, but there is also discussion about a national road pricing system, with the same privacy concern that it'll record all your movements, and about an electronic patient dossier. I'm afraid though, that to wake up the general public, first a massive breach in such a system must occur.

 

[funk de fino]

Who exactly has the ability to take over from New Labour? The Etonians? The newly slap-bang-centrists of the Liberal Democrats?

Unfortunately a lot of the people, who cannot wait for Labour to be gone, have never really dealt with a Tory govt in the past.

If they do get in I think it will be a bad thing for England but a good thing for Scotland.

Have never really been fussed about the ID card thing.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Have never really been fussed about the ID card thing.

You don't mind politicians spending £16bn of taxpayers money when they can't identify any benefit that will arise from doing so?