Reaction to Blair's ID Card Article In Daily Telegraph

[Andrew Johnson]

Is Britain waking up - at last? Read the comments (pasted below too):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/11/06/ do0601.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/11/06/ixopinion.html

We need ID cards to secure our borders and ease modern life
By Tony Blair
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 06/11/2006

Comment on this story Read comments


No ID card: no benefits, says Blair
On any list of public concerns, illegal immigration, crime, terrorism and identity fraud would figure towards the top. In each, identity abuse is a crucial component. It is all part of a changing world: global mass migration; easier travel; new services and new technologies constantly being accessed. The case for ID cards is a case not about liberty but about the modern world. Biometrics give us the chance to have secure identity and the bulk of the ID cards' cost will have to be spent on the new biometric passports in any event.

I am not claiming ID cards, and the national identity database that will make them effective, are a complete solution to these complex problems. That is the tactic of opponents who suggest that, if their introduction is unable to prevent all illegal immigration or every terrorist outrage, they are somehow worthless. What I do believe strongly is that we can't ignore the advances in biometric technology in a world in which protection and proof of identity are more important than ever.

advertisementNor is the Government alone in believing that biometrics offer us a massive opportunity to secure our identities. Firms across the world are already using fingerprint or iris recognition. More than 50 countries are developing biometric passports. France, Italy and Spain plan to make their ID cards biometric. Visitors to the United States now digitally record their fingerprint, and new UK passports from last month must carry a facial biometric. We also know how effective it can be. In trials using this new technology on visa applications at just nine overseas posts, our officials have already uncovered 1,400 people trying to get back into the UK illegally.

A national identity system will have direct benefits in making our borders more secure and countering illegal immigration. Biometric visas and residence cards are central to our plans and will be introduced ahead of ID cards. I also want to see ID cards made compulsory for all non-EU foreign nationals looking for work and when they get a National Insurance number. This will enable us, for the first time, to check accurately those coming into our country, their eligibility to work, for free hospital treatment or to claim benefits.

I am convinced, as are our security services, that a secure identity system will help us counter terrorism and international crime. Terrorists routinely use multiple identities – up to 50 at a time – to hide and confuse. This is something al-Qa'eda train people at their camps to do. It will also help us tackle the problem of identity fraud, which already costs £1.7 billion annually – a figure that has increased by 500 per cent in recent years. Building yourself a new and false identity is all too easy at the moment. Forging an ID card and matching biometric record will be much harder.

The National Identity Register will help improve protection for the vulnerable, enabling more effective and quicker checks on those seeking to work, for example, with children. It should make it much more difficult, as has happened tragically in the past, for people to slip between the cracks. Crime detection rates, which fell steadily for decades, should also be boosted. Police, who will have access to the national database, will be able to compare 900,000 outstanding crime-scene marks with fingerprints held centrally.

This is how a national identity system will help tackle some of the major challenges facing our country. However, I believe its benefits go beyond helping us counter problems. Biometric technology will enable us, in a relatively short period of time, to cut delays, improve access and make secure a whole array of services. By giving certainty in asserting our identity and simplicity in verifying it, biometrics will do away with the need for producing birth certificates, driving licences, NI and NHS numbers, utility bills and bank statements for the simple task of proving who we are. A national identity system will quickly become part of the national infrastructure. It should prevent us having to tell every agency individually when we move house. In future, we could be automatically alerted when our passports are running out.

So these are the benefits against which we have to gauge the disadvantages of introducing a secure national identity system. There are three main lines of attack — the civil liberties argument, effectiveness and cost. I know this will outrage some people but, in a world in which we daily provide information to a whole host of companies and organisations and willingly carry a variety of cards to identify us, I don't think the civil liberties argument carries much weight.

More than two million shoppers in the US already use a "Pay by Touch" system that links their fingerprints to their bank accounts, and a similar system is on trial here in the UK. Parliament has attached important safeguards to the scheme, which should meet reasonable concerns. Individuals will have the right to see what information is held on them; the register will not contain medical records or tax and benefits information; full accreditation will be required for any organisation that wishes to use the data – and they will have to get consent from each individual before they access their details.

It was also very clear from last week's arguments about surveillance and the DNA database that the public, when anyone bothers to ask them, are overwhelmingly behind CCTV being used to catch or deter hooligans, or DNA being used to track down those who have committed horrific crimes. And that's what surveys suggest, too, about their position on ID cards.

Then there is the argument that ID cards and the national register simply will not work. This rests largely on the past failures, which I accept exist, of IT projects of all governments. This, however, seems to me an argument not to drop the scheme but to ensure it is done well. There are plenty of examples of how this can be achieved. The Passport Service database, which holds 70 million records, has already issued 2.5 million biometric passports since March.

That leaves the cost to the individual. Here, too, there has been some confusion. I simply don't recognise some of the figures that have been attached to ID cards which, too often, include the costs of biometric passports. This is unfair and inaccurate. We will have no choice but to have a biometric passport, if we want to travel abroad. The United States has started to require them. This will soon be the case throughout the world. On present estimates, biometric passports make up 70 per cent – or around £66 – of the cost of the combined passports/ID cards we want. The additional cost of the ID cards will be less than £30 — or £3 a year for their 10-year lifespan. Not a bad price for the problems I am convinced they will help us tackle and for the benefits they will bring.


Comment on this story

Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright

=============
Comments
The reactions on this forum to Tony Blair's sales pitch for ID cards are significant. Apart from one or two, they range from ridicule to disgust and defiance. I believe - and it's a thrilling possibility - that this latest government outrage is going to be the one that finally shakes us Britons out of our apathy. Let's take our protests to the streets! Better still - to the steps of Westminster!
Posted by Liberty Bill on November 7, 2006 2:05 PM
Report this comment

I can't remember whether Nostradamus predicted great woe visited upon the people by smarmy gits with sinister motives, but I predict the greatest civil disobedience since the 1926 General Strike. Brace yourselves, NuLab!
Posted by Free Briton on November 7, 2006 1:37 PM
Report this comment

Hey, Tone - have a look at these posts! Looks like you've got a fight on your hands ...
Posted by nyahnyahguessmyidentity on November 7, 2006 1:02 PM
Report this comment

The suggested benefits are all very vague (and I lack belief in their being attained).

Concrete examples with auditable promises of irritations which will be removed by having a card are lacking, and in my view strangely lacking if there is real official belief in the utility of the system at the purposes it is said to have.

How about "If you are carrying your card you will not be asked to fill in any demographic detail on any public service (state, local gov, NHS, school etc) form." That is a convenience, which might well be worth £30, but my view is that no official with a government form they want filled in will actually demonstrate belief that the details on the card are those of the person standing in front of them.
Posted by Adrian midgley on November 7, 2006 9:53 AM
Report this comment

Accept a National ID card and the next thing they'll want to do is to implant you with the next generation of Verichip to tag and track you like a herd animal. NO THANK YOU, MR. BLAIR! We're not that stupid! You can go back to your mates at the Bilderberg Group and inform them that the Great Unwashed refuse to buy into your Straussian scare tactics!
Posted by smadewell on November 7, 2006 9:30 AM
Report this comment

V for Vendetta should be compulsory viewing for all Brits they might then have some understanding of what our control freaker government has in mind for us (Blair and new labour have two aims total control of the poeple and maxime benefit for themselves.)
Posted by Ann Craik on November 7, 2006 8:12 AM
Report this comment

So "I feel very strongly" is meant to make us feel that the decision has been made in a considered and rational manner.

This Government has a long record of not listening to those who, "actually" know better than the government.

There have been any number of security specialists who have condemned the proposals on the grounds that the technology is not up to the task. Even the likes of Stella Rimmington (Ex-head of MI5) has called into question the efficacy of what is proposed.

While we are at it let's centralise all of this data to make it easier for the criminals to steal our identities, and it will happen.

The real problem here is that this government is incapable of admitting that they were wrong and would prefer to waste tax revenue in attempts to save face.
Posted by Brett Wing on November 7, 2006 7:59 AM
Report this comment

Will it turn out that ID cards and database are being introduced to comply (elaborately) with some EU requirement that hasn't yet been explained to us?
Posted by Adrianne Innes on November 7, 2006 3:44 AM
Report this comment

Maybe we can tie the ID card system to the Census and have the ID card record your Income, religion, voting record etc.

This will make it really easy for them to find you when they decide to dissappear you in the middle of the night and load you in cattle trucks for being a christian/muslim/jedi/conservative/gay/straight or whatever some future Hitler / Cromwell "lord protector of UK" decides that your existence is an abomination to the state.

This is a slippery slope - as one WWII writer put it "when they came for the jews, I didn't protest, when they came for the homosexuals I didn't protest, when they came for me, there was no-one left to protest!"
Posted by Ian Jones on November 7, 2006 2:43 AM
Report this comment

We used to live in a free and democratic society; that was before year zero and the arrival of B.Liar and his cronies. I.D. cards will serve only to alienate the legal, decent, honest and truthful majority who have been so badly betrayed by the deceitful and mendacious power crazed "B.liarites" who have laid waste our Nation this past decade. This Government is against any aspect of personal freedom or liberty which is counter to its own perverse beliefs. Yet more public money is to be wasted on yet another system for capturing yet more information on the lives of the decent and hard working majority. It is not enough for B.Liar and his cronies to tax us over and over again, destroy our pensions (whilst they platinum plate their own) and engage in illegal wars which are proving un-winnable yet highly detrimental to our security. Now they want to intrude into our daily lives and track us wherever we go; and of course make us pay for it. Life under Stalin, Honicker, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao or Sadam would probably have been no worse than what lies ahead for the UK. B.Liar's ID cards will NOT work. The stupidity of the B.Liar and his vain glorious search for a legacy beggars belief; B.liar your legacy is IRAQ.
Posted by Dr Edmund Oliver on November 6, 2006 11:06 PM
Report this comment

While I have great respect and admiration for Mr.Tony Blair, I am a bit saddened by this proposal.I am hundered percent for stop on all illegal migration and if needed legal migration as well.But to ask only non-EU people carry the ID cards seems to be open discrimination.Personally ,in such a case ,I would prefer to go back to my home country India and rather live a less luxurious life there instead of accepting the everyday humilation of carrying this "tag" of being an 'inferior' race in the UK.
Posted by Rajeev on November 6, 2006 10:44 PM
Report this comment

hope it`s not EDS Tony wants to use as they have already buggered up the CSA (system due to be scrapped ) and are now working on the Inland Revenue .......God help us all
Posted by John on November 6, 2006 10:18 PM
Report this comment

The only way an ID card system with biometrics would have any value would be if every official had a terminal to read the biometrics. Otherwise a visual forgery would pass muster. This would cost many times the figure currently being quoted. Who will joint me in a bonfire when the forms start being issued
Posted by K M Wells on November 6, 2006 10:09 PM
Report this comment

I just read a lot of these comments, and am amazed at the number of people who think he is a liar.

He must have very thick skin to say these sorts of things knowng that so many people think he is lying when he says them.

Never trust a man with thick skin, they don't feel things like the rest of us.
Posted by Kann-alp Nehpetz on November 6, 2006 8:27 PM
Report this comment

This video clip, in which an "unbreakable" biometric fingerprint system is broken in to using a photocopy (yes that's right, a photocopy) of a fingerprint that has been licked should hopefully make him shudder at the utter frailty of his assertion that biometrics provide proof of identity.
link
Mr. Blair, please just talk to people in industry who know about "authentication" and learn what biometrics do and don't give you. An identity card with the owner's fingerprints all over it is known as "easy meat".
Posted by Kann-alp Nehpetz on November 6, 2006 8:10 PM
Report this comment

'...the public, when anyone bothers to ask them, are overwhelmingly behind CCTV being used to catch ... hooligans, or DNA being used to track down.... blah de blair de blah...'. So ask us Tone, ask us, do we want CCTV and ID cards?

No, you don't want to ask do you?


Posted by Joanne Hairy on November 6, 2006 7:36 PM
Report this comment

I am against ID cards for most of the reasons mentioned above. But think of the positives if they are effective.

With good ID we will not need politicians as the everthing can be decided by referendum using the internet. We could all view proposed laws, spending proposals, regulations and other matters on our PC's. We then insert our ID cards into the PC and vote on the proposals. Forums could be used to formulate policy. Great.
Posted by Ted G on November 6, 2006 7:23 PM
Report this comment

There is a pattern emerging with
Mr.Blair, sadly only too familiar these days:

1.Mr.Blair and Co. propose a new earth-shattering "initiative",

2. The British citizens are duly horrified and dismayed and start writing protesting letters to the papers.

3. The "initiative" nontheless is happily rubber-stamped by the Parlament and becomes a law.

4. There is nothing whatsoever that the silent majority can do about it,

5. Mr.Blair carries on unopposed and unstoppable as before.


Posted by lil on November 6, 2006 7:09 PM
Report this comment

I'd suggest that when you get your ID Card, swap it with your friend /neighbour etc. or sell it in the pub and report it lost / stolen. If everybody does it, the whole system will probably be swamped in the first week and crash completely.
Posted by Tam Saunders on November 6, 2006 6:55 PM
Report this comment

Those who are against ID cards really need to grow up. We live in a dangerous world and whilst most appreciate that ID cards are not perfect, they do take us along the road to having better security, perhaps assisting in stopping people gaining benefits fraudulently. I am sick of the human rights arguments against the so called big brother state. I am subject to the same restraints that CCTV, ID Cards and other measures to make us more secure bring about, but believe me, that small incursion into my privacy is a price worth paying. I have a simple analysis on this. If you have done nothing wrong then what have you got to worry about. Look at the benefits in the fight against crime that fingerfrints and DNA have brought, both wehemently opposed at their inception. A few years from now, the vast majority will be glad to have an ID card and think nothing of it.
Posted by Craig Milne on November 6, 2006 6:49 PM
Report this comment

What a complete load of wordy twaddle. How on earth does Mr. Blair know how much this scheme will really cost, and how can he be so certain it will have any benefit? The fact is, if this plan has anything in common with nearly every single instance of state-sponsored interfering in the lives of ordinary people that this government has done, it will be of extremely limited value and at a time when businesses and individuals are desperate for tax cuts, will end up costing the taxpayer at least five times - perhaps ten times - more than was originally thought to be the case.
Posted by Michael on November 6, 2006 6:33 PM
Report this comment

My main concern about these ID cards is "mission creep". Where will it all end? Will it end when the card contains our full medical history and our future health predictions? Will it end when the card contains all our educational qualifications and job references? Will it end when the card contains all our income details and what we've spent that income on? Will it end when we have been classified (grades A to E) depending on our value and usefulness to the state (and, of course, to our economic masters)?

Don't forget that a large proportion of the electorate is already ignored at a General Election because they are not "the right type of people" living in "the right area" who do not "fall within the right household income bracket". Note also that the idea that Parliamentarians (politicians) are the best guardians of our liberty is quite obviously rot. Anyone with any experience of these parasites over the past thirty years knows better than that. Who was it that once said hiring an MP is just like hiring a London taxi? Very easy to do, done in secret and cheap in every sense of the word.

Tony Blair has been such a great disappointment for our country. I first met him in the early 1990s and (like many others) was greatly impressed. His Labour Party seemed different too - but at heart it isn't. Once it was content to control business and industry. Now it seems content to control me and you. "Time for a change in Government," do I hear you say? "Time for Tony to go." Yet, who will replace him? By the time of the next General Election Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Ming Campbell will all be in favour of ID cards. Reason - "it has all gone too far and cannot be reversed." This is because the State, the Economy and the EU will always win. You (a part of the easily ignored and quite irrelevant masses) will always lose. Unless, of course, you all agree to break their laws. Perhaps YOU will. Somehow I doubt it. After all, if you have nothing to hide and nothing to fear there is a one thousand pound fine and the real chance of a spell in clink - until you obey and conform too. For there is always space in prison for noble fine defaulters - like frail elderly pensioners and the victimised poor. There is also time in prison for the forced administration of your ID card. For you are now a number for your nation and not an individual. For you too will be a part of this project which will allow Government to charge business a fee every time they need to check your ID. A nice little earner. Lovely jubbly. What a shame I won't get any of the money made out of my own identity. Only a Government as sleazy as this one would seek to privatize the people in order to sell them for a profit. Hitler and Stalin would be delighted and so should you be. For they both believed economic values were worth more than moral values. Now don't forget that, Number 8284916. Social Category E - (Lemon) - Worthless.
Posted by Neil Welton on November 6, 2006 6:30 PM
Report this comment

Tony Blair is a liar, these ID cards will not be secure. Consider this: if your playstation 2 with advanced nanotechnology can be "chipped" to circumvent its security, how difficult will it be to circumvent a relatively cheap ID card?

Blair wants his head examining.
Posted by Scott T-unstall on November 6, 2006 6:22 PM
Report this comment

Does this man live on the same planet as me?

What next: compulsory entrance to the DNA database just to 'wrap things up nicely' with those other wrong 'uns who've been arrested and had a swab taken (not actually charged and brought before the courts though - no need to bother with old-fashioned technicalities like that in NuLab's Britain)?

Well Mr Blair, don't you worry your silly little head about protecting me, the innocent, since hopefully, as a law-abiding, tax-paying, non-violent, British man with no criminal record and NOTHING TO HIDE, I'll be leaving the UK the moment ID cards come in. Then you can sit back and admire the wonderful PC society you've helped create and concern yourself with much more important matters: serializing your memoirs with Rupert M.

Freedom? Yeah, right.
Posted by Chris Hayes on November 6, 2006 6:17 PM
Report this comment

"The case for ID cards is a case not about liberty
but about the modern world."

Errr maybe for the government, but for me (and
millions of others) liberty is the very core of our
society. ID cards have a profound impact on
those liberties.

"It was also very clear from last week's
arguments about surveillance and the DNA
database that the public, when anyone bothers to
ask them, are overwhelmingly behind CCTV
being used to catch or deter hooligans, or DNA
being used to track down those who have
committed horrific crimes. And that's what
surveys suggest, too, about their position on ID
cards."

Actually one thing that was evident from last
week's discussion of surveillance was how many
people were appalled by the situation we now
find ourselves in.

The evidence from Australia and here in the UK
suggests that people are in favour of ID cards
just so long as they remain ignorant of how the
system would work. The more they learn of the
details the more they become opposed to the
scheme. ID cards are popular amongst two
groups - authoritarians who don't understand
the technology (Blair and his Cabinet), and those
IT companies salivating over the fat contracts
coming their way.

"I know this will outrage some people but, in a
world in which we daily provide information to a
whole host of companies and organisations and
willingly carry a variety of cards to identify us, I
don't think the civil liberties argument carries
much weight."

Almost all of those organisations are governed
by the Data Protection Act. if they misuse my
data I can sue them. When I no longer want to
provide them with data they are obliged to
remove me from their systems just as soon as
the data is no longer needed. The government
has set itself aside from the DPA. It can collect
data and process it as it sees fit. If the data is
incorrect I cannot sue the Home Secretary - but
he can choose to remove my identity from the
system without an independent right of appeal.
So Mr. Blair that's not a very good comparison at
all.

And can we please kill off the myth of the
biometric passport - there is no such thing as
yet, your 'biometric passport' is nothing more
than one containing a digital photograph.

So the argument is going to boil down to 3p a
day? At last we know how it's going to be sold to
the population - the same way as the TV licence
and dodgy loans on daytime TV. I think we can
honestly say that never before have so many
people lost their liberty for such a small amount
of money.
Posted by iCowboy on November 6, 2006 6:03 PM
Report this comment

"The case for ID cards is a case not about liberty
but about the modern world."

Errr maybe for the government, but for me (and
millions of others) liberty is the very core of our
society. ID cards have a profound impact on
those liberties.

"It was also very clear from last week's
arguments about surveillance and the DNA
database that the public, when anyone bothers to
ask them, are overwhelmingly behind CCTV
being used to catch or deter hooligans, or DNA
being used to track down those who have
committed horrific crimes. And that's what
surveys suggest, too, about their position on ID
cards."

Actually one thing that was evident from last
week's discussion of surveillance was how many
people were appalled by the situation we now
find ourselves in.

The evidence from Australia and here in the UK
suggests that people are in favour of ID cards
just so long as they remain ignorant of how the
system would work. The more they learn of the
details the more they become opposed to the
scheme. ID cards are popular amongst two
groups - authoritarians who don't understand
the technology (Blair and his Cabinet), and those
IT companies salivating over the fat contracts
coming their way.

"I know this will outrage some people but, in a
world in which we daily provide information to a
whole host of companies and organisations and
willingly carry a variety of cards to identify us, I
don't think the civil liberties argument carries
much weight."

Almost all of those organisations are governed
by the Data Protection Act. if they misuse my
data I can sue them. When I no longer want to
provide them with data they are obliged to
remove me from their systems just as soon as
the data is no longer needed. The government
has set itself aside from the DPA. It can collect
data and process it as it sees fit. If the data is
incorrect I cannot sue the Home Secretary - but
he can choose to remove my identity from the
system without an independent right of appeal.
So Mr. Blair that's not a very good comparison at
all.

And can we please kill off the myth of the
biometric passport - there is no such thing as
yet, your 'biometric passport' is nothing more
than one containing a digital photograph.

So the argument is going to boil down to 3p a
day? At last we know how it's going to be sold to
the population - the same way as the TV licence
and dodgy loans on daytime TV. I think we can
honestly say that never before have so many
people lost their liberty for such a small amount
of money.
Posted by iCowboy on November 6, 2006 6:00 PM
Report this comment

The case for ID cards is a case not about liberty but about the modern world.
Meaningless.

A national identity system will have direct benefits in making our borders more secure and countering illegal immigration.
What would help to make our borders more secure and counter illegal immigration
would be border controls and the bodies to police them.

I am convinced, as are our security services, that a secure identity system will help us counter terrorism and international crime … It will also help us tackle the problem of identity fraud, which already costs £1.7 billion annually – a figure that has increased by 500 per cent in recent years.

To counter terrorism and international crime, you need intelligence in all senses of the word and the bodies to gather and process that intelligence.

Frank Dobson in a debate on ID cards made the point that a person who believed that,
in countering terrorism, it would be better to spend money on ID cards to rather than on more police and intelligence-gatherers would belong in the funny farm.

After the terrorist attacks in London in July ’05, Mr. Charles Clarke said that ID cards wouldn’t necessarily have helped to track down the terrorists, but that they might have helped with identifying the victims faster. We knew what he meant – that ID cards wouldn’t have helped in tracking down the terrorists.

Identity fraud? In the same debate on ID cards, the MP, Robert Marshall-Andrews,
said that he went to a lot of trouble to find out how ID cards would help materially
in this area and that it came down to money-laundering. He asked the question:
would a man with a sack of funny money really think twice about the wisdom of
laundering, because he was worried about ID cards?

And the evidence for this alleged 500% increase?

I don't think the civil liberties argument carries much weight.
This isn’t an argument. And that’s about all we hear about civil liberties from Mr. Blair
i.e. nothing. It’s a little difficult to believe that Mr. Blair is capable of making a bona fide attempt to strike a balance between security and civil liberties when he dismisses civil liberties out of hand in this way. The National Identity Register and database are key here. Maybe, that would have opened up embarrassing questions about civil liberties for Mr. Blair, which is why he said virtually nothing about the National Identity Register and database in his article.

It was also very clear from last week's arguments about surveillance and the DNA database that the public, when anyone bothers to ask them, are overwhelmingly behind CCTV being used to catch or deter hooligans, or DNA being used to track down those who have committed horrific crimes. And that's what surveys suggest, too, about their position on ID cards.

I have seen no such survey being conducted. I can’t imagine that Mr. Blair has been out and about on the streets watching surveys being conducted, so how does he know?
In any event, what are these surveys worth? Most of us go out of our way to avoid these canvassers, don’t we? Only a very, very few stop to divulge their opinions to
canvassers, so how representative can such opinion polls ever be? If opinion polls are so important, then, if Mr. Blair was consistent, he would have been dissuaded from
going to war in Iraq.


Then there is the argument that ID cards and the national register simply will not work.
This is what civil servants were saying in leaked emails some months back. They don’t know what they’re talking about, but Blair does? Possibly. After all, John Reid said that
the Home Office wasn’t fit for purpose, but then, logically, this would mean that they were incapable of carrying out any project, let alone a major project such as ID cards.


Posted by Jeremy Moss on November 6, 2006 5:57 PM
Report this comment

Has this man never heard of defence in depth? I'm actually quite happy having multiple documents - at present, if one is compromised or lost, I can use another. When a credit card was compromised some years ago, I just cancelled it and used another whilst the mess was sorted out. When the government controls my identity, linking everything to one number (including, as part of "joined up government", my tax and medical records) what do I do if it is compromised? Cancel my eyeballs? Get a new set of fingerprints?

Never mind all the other inaccuracies. Of course identity fraud has gone up when the 1.7 Billion figure is made up anyway, but as Goebbels found, if you repeat a lie often enough people believe it. Well, Tony does.
Posted by Bob Andrews on November 6, 2006 5:51 PM
Report this comment

I am a taxi driver and I already hold the following photo ID cards,
1. From the licencing authority to show I am an authorised Taxi Driver.
2. From Social Services to show that I can transport passengers on their behalf.
3. From the council to show that I can transport School Children.

I could also have other photo ID's to show membership of clubs etc.

How many of these ID's will a National ID card replace? None. Therefore what is the point of a National ID card. It will be just another piece of useless plastic cluttering up my wallet.
Posted by Bob Markham on November 6, 2006 5:43 PM
Report this comment

Dear Leader,

Yes, I am one of those outraged by your view that issues of civil liberties can be relegated to some sort of third-place behind cost and effectiveness. Please resign now, you ignoramus, and go live somewhere that your views would be more in line with the local ethos – maybe Pyongyang or Rangoon?

I won’t even start on how poorly informed you are on matters such as the accuracy of current DNA profiling in huge databases, or the current scandals in the US on ‘Pay by Touch’ fraud. (By the way, how exactly much do we taxpayers cough up for you to be so badly misled by your advisors?)

You seem to believe, like many people lacking a scientific education, that biometrics are somehow foolproof. Don’t you realise that even the oldest forensic biometric of them all, the fingerprint, can be completely misleading in many cases and often easily fooled?

And as for your statement that, “The case for ID cards is a case not about liberty but about the modern world”, I am simply aghast. Your vision-thing seems to equate the future with an absence of liberty. Are you perhaps trying to augment your post-PM income by writing a new version of ‘1984’? Or much worse, trying to implement it before departing onto the US lecture circuit?

And through all your article, Dear Leader, you pay servile obeisance to the USA. Umm, sorry, but I thought I lived in the UK, not the 51st state. ‘We have to do this, that and the other because the Americans are doing it’? Well, gee whiz bubba, did Dubya simply whistle up his poodle, ‘Yo, Blair!’, and you came up barking and yapping agreement with the moron from Crawford? Don’t we have our own national position and policy any more?

This is all extremely worrying coming from our Dear Leader. Where is he getting this from? Has he gone bananas? Call the men in white coats please, the Dear Leader now thinks he’s Big Brother (scarily, with all those surveillance cameras, he may be onto something).

And as for the standard police/ministerial reply on these matters of ID cards and DNA databases and so on, ‘If you’ve done nothing wrong, then you’ve got nothing to fear’: wasn’t it something similar that the Nazi guards used to reassure the Jews as they herded them onto the cattle wagons to Auschwitz? What kind of a government do we really have in this country? Are you really ‘Adolf Blair’, or perhaps ‘Mao Tse Blair’, travelling incognito?

This is the most depressing and alarming article I think that have ever seen from any serving minister, let alone a Prime Minister.

Dear Leader, I would in any case never, ever vote for a hypocritical champagne socialist like yourself, so I know that my views and criticisms are as water off a duck’s back to you. But one day you will look back at this country and what you and your cohort have done to it, and I hope you will feel as deeply, sincerely sad and ashamed as I do now when I look at Britain in 2006. I hope you will cry your eyes out for the damage you and your administration have done, the things we have lost, and the money and tremendous opportunities you and your cronies have wasted.

You disappoint and disgust me. A true democracy deserves better.

Posted by Steve Cox on November 6, 2006 5:33 PM
Report this comment

May I make two general points? Firstly, count the number of references to what goes on in the United States!! Secondly, Ladies and Gentlemen, forget Mr Blair! The Conservatives have already said they will not introduce ID cards. This half-baked article is just Mr Blair winding us up: he knows he is yesterday's man.
Posted by John Wood on November 6, 2006 5:30 PM
Report this comment

Our liberty is already compromised, so why worry? What a disgraceful piece of sophistry!
Posted by Menexenos on November 6, 2006 5:24 PM
Report this comment

I am not worried about illegal immigration, crime, terrorism or identity fraud. Does this not make me a member of the public? I am more worried about losing the balance between our personal freedoms and these problems. They will not go away; they have always been around under different guises so why lose our freedoms whilst they exist?

Invasive biometrics are the greatest threat to our librties. I can forgive the facial biometrics as they are a function of the data of the picture, but actually giving away more of our person than we wish to give, and paying for the privilidge is, in my opinion, scandalous.

Just because we have the technology does not mean we out to use it. ID cards are similar to using Weapons of Mass Destruction to hunt foxes. A little over the top perhaps?
Posted by aburgess on November 6, 2006 5:24 PM
Report this comment

People do not want more CCTV Mr Blair, they wish to see more Police officers, real officers that is not Community Support Officers. The ID card seems to be your response to your previous failure to effectively tackle crime, fraud and terrorism
Posted by Andy on November 6, 2006 5:16 PM
Report this comment

I don't trust the Government the police or the judiciary.This is the first step to totalitarianism and articles like Tony Blair's make me ten times more suspicious.Since when has any politician told the truth? For example,at present any contact with the police without a charge leads to permanent filing of individual fingerprints and in some cases DNA. Why - they want to threaten you if they wish and multiple wrong imprisonments in recent years show that's what they do. Resist, especially if you a minority member

Posted by David Kay on November 6, 2006 5:10 PM
Report this comment

"Police, ..will be able to compare 900,000 .. fingerprints"

"It should prevent us having to tell every agency individually when we move house."

Just how could these statements possibly be true, and the following statement also be true?

"[any organisation that wishes to use the data] will have to get consent from each individual before they access their details."

You cannot ask 900,000 people for permission to access their data everytime you want to check a fingerprint, and you cannot have agencies know when you have moved address unless they have already accessed your data.

Blair in this case is misinformed or deliberately misleading.

This system makes no technological sense.

Also, "Terrorists routinely use multiple identities" - How exactly is this system going to make it any harder to create multiple identities? Even fingerprints are non-unique - there is no perfect way to guarantee a persons identity. Ask any expert.
Posted by Alex Bowyer on November 6, 2006 5:05 PM
Report this comment

"By giving certainty in asserting our identity and simplicity in verifying it"

This statement makes no sense and shows a worrying lack of understanding by Mr Blair. There is no technology which can say anything with absolute certainty - data entry clerks can be bribed, documents can be obtained fraudently, computer programmers make errors. It is this idea that "because it's on a computer it must be correct" that worries me most about Blair's proposals - imagine the scene - you're talking to some clueless kid on minimum wage in a call centre, and trying to convince him that the information on his screen about you is incorrect, that you are innocent of some crime wrongly recorded on your record, and you are telling the truth. You would have no chance - A nightmare scenario.

Furthermore - how exactly is this system going to be simple? Biometric technologies are untested on this scale - and can't account for problems such as people with disabilities being unable to use the machines. Everyone is going to be interviewed to get an ID card - how is that simple for anyone?
Posted by Alex Bowyer on November 6, 2006 4:57 PM
Report this comment

The Prime Minister is accustomed to a high standard of administration from the staff at 10 Downing St. For us mere mortals however, we generally receive apallingly bad service from local councils, the NHS, banks, airlines, etc. Sooner or later some minor bureaucrat will screw up on somebody's identity, causing endless problems. If these ever are resolved, it will be without meaningful (i.e. cash) apology.
We the ordinary citizens have to protect ourselves against an over powerful government, and rejecting ID cards is one such measure.
Posted by Michael Gorman on November 6, 2006 4:57 PM
Report this comment

I really wish Blair and Co would stop with the rubbish about ID fraud costing the economy £1.7bn a year. The figure is utterly arbitrary but is mostly made up of cardholder not present credit card fraud (i.e. over the phone or internet), and VAT carousel fraud, with a bit of benefits fraud on the side. Almost none of it is solvable by the introduction of an ID card. The actual savings (assuming a 100% take up and 100% accurary) are of the order of a few 10s of millions, about a 50th of the annual running cost. Great value for money that eh?

The Government know this of course, so why are they lying to us about it? What have they got to hide?
Posted by Stu Hamlin on November 6, 2006 4:46 PM
Report this comment

'The case for ID cards is a case not about liberty but about the modern world.'

It's not exactly a sequitur, is it?
Posted by Harry Hutton on November 6, 2006 4:39 PM
Report this comment

Can we believe anything that Blair or his rotten government do will make any difference other than to create yet even more expense for the overburdened taxpayer.
Posted by stevgillamos on November 6, 2006 4:30 PM
Report this comment

It's interesting to note that the minority of
comments in favour of the ID scheme seem
woefully misinformed about what it consists of.

The real problem with this scheme is not the
useless piece of plastic (and it IS useless) but the
sinister database behind it. This will be used to
build a up unprecedented amount of information
about the individual that holds the card. Every
interaction with the state or corporations will be
stored.

I don't trust this government that has a history of
smearing it's oponents with this information, let
alone any and all future governments.

It is also interesting to see the accusations of
being anti-modern being used against ID
opponents. I've got degrees in IT and Bio-
sciences and I can say from a position of
knowledge that the card and database won't
solve the problems dishonestly claims it will, but
will transform this country into something deeply
unpleasent. That's assuming it works, which
most experts agree is a fantasy. It is also worth
bearing in mind that Communism and Nazism
were thought to be modern ideas in their time....
Posted by Robert Ringrow on November 6, 2006 4:23 PM
Report this comment

I was born a free Englishman, I have lived for seventy years a free Englishman and I shall die a free Englishman and I will be damned if a wretched meglomaniac government will try and remove from me priviledges which evolved, not always easily, over centuries of English history.
Posted by Kevin on November 6, 2006 4:23 PM
Report this comment

There isn't a shred of evidence that ID cards or Biometric data will or has done anything to stop the spread of terrorism or will stop illegal imigrants working anywhere.
Under the policies of New Labour Britain has sleepwalked into these problems, which Tony Blair tries to tell us he is addressing.
Tony old son - you are the problem!
Posted by Steve Barrett on November 6, 2006 4:20 PM
Report this comment

Given that Tony Blair, his politics aside, is an intelligent man, and the fact that his arguments for ID cards are so patently hollow and meanignless suggests that he is hiding his real motivation - to make us all easier to govern. What he knows, but fails to think is important, is that in so doing he will deprive us all of the last ounce of privacy and property we can truly call our own - our identities. I am who I am, a private citizen and I do not have to prove my identity to anyone, certainly not the government. I will go to jail rather than carry an ID card, as I hope millions of others will too. No doubt we will all be subject to control orders in the absence of prison spaces and confined to our homes (perhaps tagged). Should any of us attempt to break the control order we will be tracked fairly easily by the 300 or so CCTV cameras that apparently photograph us every day. That Tony Blair believes we are all in favour of this frightening state of affairs suggests that he is either incredibly out of touch with the mood of the people or is guilty of bare faced lying.
Posted by Henry Burton on November 6, 2006 4:19 PM
Report this comment

Bog off Blair, and take your so-called "Labour party" with you.
Posted by Rob Spear on November 6, 2006 4:11 PM
Report this comment

Frances Stonor Saunders replied to this drivel and demolished all its arguments comprehensively. Do a web search for "present your card for a swipe" and you will be able to read her now famous text. Everyone is waking up to what this really means, and I am afraid Mr. Blair this means that your ID cards are doomed.
Posted by Jerry Rankin on November 6, 2006 4:02 PM
Report this comment

I didn't like this statement.

"The case for ID cards is a case not about liberty but about the modern world."

So liberty, and presumably, freedom are too old fashioned to be considered in the modern world. If I hadn't already been against ID Cards I would be now.
Posted by Colin Simpson on November 6, 2006 3:49 PM
Report this comment

Can anyone confirm my suspicion that ID cards will be a requirement of a unitary EU state called Europe? Why should the UK and Ireland be allowed to go against the flow when ID cards are currently compulsory in all other EU member states? The PM is simply planning to introduce now what will become obligatory anyway once the EU federalist dream is realised.
Posted by Wilson on November 6, 2006 3:41 PM
Report this comment

Totalitarianism in a saville row suit.Arthur Scargill was an honest Trotskyite.Blair,Reid, Straw bolshevik wolves in sheepskin.
Posted by John Morrison on November 6, 2006 3:38 PM
Report this comment

How can Tony Blair state that "people are overwhelmingly behind CCTV being used to catch or deter hooligans", and asserting that that somehow proves they feel the same about ID cards? How does he know without the proof of a referendum? Anyone who has a driving license in Britain today is now already forced to carry photo ID, so we're almost there already. I will never carry an ID card - I don't believe that we should have to justify our presence on this earth and I despise the argument that says if you have nothing to hide, then why would you mind carrying ID. That's not the point. The issue is that our fundamental freedom is at stake here - and the reality is that it's already lost. We are monitored, surveyed and spied on, most noticeably in London - and much of the time we have no idea who is watching us. Have people realised that there are now thousands and thousands of CCTV cameras attached to traffic lights, focusing not on traffic, but pedestrians? Why? who is watching us?
The big question is, how long is it going to take before people wake up to their lack of civil rights and liberties, and start to fight back?
Posted by Louise Allen-Jones on November 6, 2006 3:32 PM
Report this comment

Dear Tony,

When I was younger, I remember quoting the simplistic oft-quoted mantra related to CCTV, DNA checks and ID Cards; 'Only criminals are against more identification, if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about.'

And then I moved to Japan.

In Japan it was mandatory for me, as a foreigner, to carry photo ID on me. In effect, I would have been breaking the law if I had left my apartment and forgot my wallet. I then realised what these anti-ID card campaigners were going on about.

I thought this was an outrageous infringement on my civil liberties. It made me resentful that I would be criminalised, breaking the law, just to have the nerve to walk around freely, sans wallet, minding my own business around the streets of Osaka.

After all, in Japan, I already had a bank card, my UK driving license, an array of credit cards, my international student ID and a pristine UK Passport back in my room (quite enough ID for anyone!).

I know that the proposed ID system would not be mandatory, but I imagine that could be changed in one vote in Parliament.

---------------------------

Moving on to the terrorism fears.

I remember going to America for the first time in August and September 2001. When I flew in on August 27th to Detriot airport the security was very tight. However when I entered the country through Niagara, Canada, there were no border guards on the bridge (This was on September the 8th 2001!). I actually had to find a US Immigration officer as he'd gone to the toilet as I needed my passport stamped to get in!

The lesson here learned is that a country's security is only as strong as its weakest point. EVERY country has a chink in its armour. And, I truly believe that these ID cards will not make one iota of difference to our national security. The reason being is that I have no doubt that they will be 'crackable' or forgeable within about 6 months of issue.

In fact, paradoxically, I believe that ID cards will actually make the UK more vulnerable to terrorism as they will lull border guards/immigration into a false sense of security and potential terrorist suspects might not receive the interrogation that they would previously have been subjected to.

All in all, better to spend a fraction of the £5 billion or so that this ID card scheme would cost, on ramping up port and border security.

Posted by Dominic Cherry on November 6, 2006 3:23 PM
Report this comment

Blair is an expert at being deliberately vague in order to disguise the unpalatable or the non-sequiturs in his argument. The trouble is it reads like an insult to the intelligence.

Try again. This argument is about as convincing as the case for invading Iraq because it had WMD.

In searching for a legacy, Mr Blair, try doing something because it's a good idea. If you find yourself having to fib a little to justify it, then that's a clue that it isn't a good idea in the 1st place.
Posted by Andrew Forbes on November 6, 2006 3:21 PM
Report this comment

1. We already have mobile phones. These allow us to be tracked whenever they are switched on. They identify our associates – who we call and who calls us. We have paid for them voluntarily. They are here now and they work. They work wherever we are, in the UK or overseas. They are the perfect ID card and make the Home Office’s old-fashioned alternative unnecessary and a waste of money. They also support eCommerce and may be expected to expand the economy as a result. ID cards make no contribution whatever to eCommerce.
2. The new biometrics were tested in the UKPS biometrics trials and the feasibility of their use was reported on by the National Physical Laboratory. Biometrics based on facial geometry do not work, tout court. Fingerprints only work 80% of the time. Irisprints can only be registered by 90% of the able-bodied population and 61% of the disabled. These biometrics are too unreliable to make it worthwhile deploying them. You are not offering us DNA. That seems to work. You are offering us, instead, three poorly-performing biometrics. They will not give “certainty in asserting our identity”, only probability. That goes for biometric passports just as much as ID cards. They are both a waste of money.
3. PA Consulting, who have been paid around £50m so far to advise the Home Office, themselves describe biometrics as “mostly hype” on their website. Note that the ex-managing partner of PA Consulting is now Chair of the Audit Commission.
4. If other countries are relying on this flawed technology, they are wasting their money. That is no reason for us to follow suit.
5. The ICAO demand of us only that we add biometrics based on facial geometry to our passports, and these biometrics should be taken from a photograph posted with the passport application. The ICAO do not require us to set up thousands of registration centres and register in person. EC 2252/2004 requires fingerprints to be added to passports but the UK is specifically excluded, as are Denmark and Ireland. There is no international legislation requiring us to waste this money.
6. You can control the issue of national insurance numbers without introducing ID cards. Given that you don’t do that now, there is no reason to believe that you will when we have ID cards. Let’s see you use existing powers first, let’s see you show the will and the ability to deliver, before any more money is wasted.
7. If biometrics make it hard for terrorists or anyone else to adopt multiple identities, they will adapt. Some people legitimately need multiple identities. I understand that our senior diplomats, for example, regularly travel under assumed identities. Suppose biometrics worked. What would happen then?
8. Home Office figures for identity fraud in 2005 are £1.7bn and in 2000 are £1.3bn. Where do you get the 500% increase from? The 2005 figures, incidentally, include three categories not measured for 2000 which add up to £400m, suggesting that the actual increase is 0%.
9. Delays in the delivery of public services could be cut by other methods than introducing ID cards. Equally, you could introduce ID cards and yet delays remain.
10. While we are expected to give up a lot of our privacy in accepting ID cards, the Lord Chancellor is raising the bar on freedom of information, the Chancellor of the Exchequer keeps the Information Commissioner short of funds, the Home Secretary wishes to make life even harder for whistleblowers and you resist enquiries into the Iraq war. If ministers have nothing to fear, why are they trying to hide?
11. The record of UK central government IT projects is a matter of history. Only the Bourbons, so far, are famous for having failed to learn from history.
12. I note that the ex-managing partner of Accenture UK is now head of the Identity and Passport Service. I assume that he, rather than you, wrote this Telegraph article.
13. You can divide a large number by 10 and the result is a smaller number. You still have to pay the whole bill.
Posted by David Moss on November 6, 2006 3:09 PM
Report this comment

The British people are being asked to accept biometric serfdom on grounds of security?

Can we agree that the three worst terrorist attacks of the 21st century in the west (New York, Madrid and London) would not have been prevented by biometric identity cards? In fact Spain already had identity cards.

Can we agree that it was distorting the intelligence surveillance that took us into Iraq and brought us into disfavour with millions of Arab and Islamic people?

It's time we spoke out against the intrusion of government into our daily lives and not allow it to increase.




Posted by Colin HARRIS on November 6, 2006 2:56 PM
Report this comment

To believe that the ID CARD and the more frighteningly intrusive data base is anything other than a corporate/government (Fascist) pushed data exchange are sadly easily led and misguided. In truth it will only serve to enslave our once free nation and people yet more, some are still ignorant and seriously need to research up on the facts rather than be spoon fed what our government puts out to the media for consumption and so build its own case for consent.
I find the short sightedness of some who would otherwise be intelligent free thinkers disturbing!
But now we are no longer a nation of thinkers, we are manipulated divided and forced to live in fear of each other and the wider world community.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are based on lies and this is simply a further extension of the lies.
Our present Government has done more to strip us of our basic freedoms and civil liberties (that our brave predecessors fought and died for) than any bogyman terrorists could ever dream of!
As many have stated here....the majority of the British public won’t stand for this and will serve to focus and unite all and the inevitable large civil disobedience will ensue.
I am like many others prepared to defend my children’s last remaining freedoms (and my own by default) not to be burdened with this un British totalitarian regime any further regardless of cost.

Posted by Tris England on November 6, 2006 2:54 PM
Report this comment

What planet is Blair living on? If for one deluded moment Blair imagines an I.D card will protect its owner for the effect of a bomb blast he is even farther in denial than popular belief has it. And as if required it is clear evidence that Mr. Blair's remaining brains cells are only employed in self preservation and dodging the facts concerning important issues. Like perhaps if we hadn't invaded Iraq the entire question of whether we require I.D cards could be discussed more honestly. Every Britain over the age of 10 knows that I.D.cards will play little or no part in defending the realm against terror attacks.The arguement concerning identity theft is slightly more compelling although if personality theft is a huge problem that needs to be stopped or controlled then surely those those whose business is directly effected should finance it. Blair simply sets up the old bogus anti terrorist bull***t so the burden of cost is placed on the citizens shoulders and that rtaher than reduce the terrorist is just a self financing control tool. Surely national defence is matter of Government and largely a role that is conducted via diplomacy. Blair seems determined to add this utterly ludicrious senseless erosion of civil liberties to his growing list of follies and frankly it sucks.
Posted by Stephen Melder on November 6, 2006 2:49 PM
Report this comment

My biggest concern is the failure rate of Biometrics. Let's say the UK population is 60 million, and the failure rate is 1%, that's 600,000 people affected. That is too high. The cost is too much. Blair is wearing blinkers, and talks about "having a debate" about the issues; the thing I've realised is whenever a Government official says "let's have a debate", what they really mean is "I've already made up my decision, but we'll give you a say that we won't listen to".

In my area a lot of people liked the idea of ID cards, but when a local trial scheme asked people to sign up, they didn't want to know - it seemed like people like the idea of finding out who everybody else was, but not carry it themselves.
Posted by AD on November 6, 2006 2:45 PM
Report this comment

I think we can be confident that this little essay by the PM was written with care by his staff, and that it represents a policy that already exists, and has to be sold.
Lies must be protected with a bodyguard of truth, as an American general said. But the truths ought to be relevant to the lie, otherwise the lie is visible - as it is here. The PMs facts are as impertinent as he is himself. We must compare the evidence of this document with the words of Tom Ridge, former US Homeland Security Secretary: “Civil liberties are one of the most precious gifts that we can give our citizens”. No, they are not a "gift" from the arrogant rulers of the age to their dependants. They exist whether politicians exist or not - except in a tyranny.
Posted by Neil Hitchin on November 6, 2006 2:43 PM
Report this comment

Mr Blair's three wise monkey approach to politics seeks to undermine centuries of hard fought for rights and to criminalise a sizable number of British voters with his dictatorial stance on ID cards and the NIR. I say criminalise as I and a large number of people I know of all age ranges and backgrounds have pledged to refuse an ID card at all costs. I will not bear a number imposed by a government neither on a card nor tatooed on my forearm!
Posted by Paul Exeter on November 6, 2006 2:43 PM
Report this comment

To continue Blair's market speak, the state works for us, we 'contract in' as clients for the functions it provides. ID cards radically change that relationship.

"People who make the most noise and fuss about infringement of their liberties must surely have something to hide."

I've nothing much to hide. When the government is largely of sound instincts (I don't think Labour is a 'totalitarian party') I still want to be able to pick my nose in private, to be treated like an adult. That's all.

But should a less sound government ever come to power - God forbid - then that little bit of personal space might just go to save some of us from imprisonment, harrassment and even death.
Posted by Ed on November 6, 2006 2:41 PM
Report this comment

Mr Blair
Since when did my identity become government property? No-one owns me, and no-one has a right to hold my identity, biometric or DNA details, least of all an inefficient dictatorial regime that cannot employ the simplest methods to protect us from terrorism. ID cards would not have prevented any of the recent terrorist atttacks, and you know it. If you ever get this crackpot scheme off the ground, I will join the hundreds of thousands of others (and one hopes, millions) of Britons who will refuse to co-operate. Better start building the extra prisons. You seem to forget that in a democracy, the government serves the will of the people and not the other way round. Or maybe you think everyone has forgotten that after 10 yeards of blairocracy?
Posted by anonymous on November 6, 2006 2:34 PM
Report this comment

Gorgon Brown stole my private pension so NuLabour may as well steal my identity as well.
Posted by A.N. Worker on November 6, 2006 2:34 PM
Report this comment

"If the government wants us to have them let them Pay for them"

forgetting, perhaps, that the government gets its money from the taxpayers? either way we'll have to pay, whether it's direct or indirect.
Posted by Jo Gaston on November 6, 2006 2:30 PM
Report this comment

How will the data be stored and who will have access to it- Eurojust, which doesn't need a warrant to do anything it likes and is not accountable to anybody?
And why on earth we should believe anythis this third-rate government says about IT costs....what rot.
Quis custoderit custodes ipsos?
Posted by Nick O on November 6, 2006 2:26 PM
Report this comment

I hate the simple 'if you do no wrong you have nothing to fear' answer, and yes the 7/7 bombers would have had an ID card. But ,their visits abroard would have been recorded and may be their progress halted. Nothing is perfect and some of the advantages re employment and 'freebies' from the State may be reduced . On balence I'm for ID cards.
Posted by Card carrier already on November 6, 2006 2:25 PM
Report this comment

But, Mr Blair, it's precisely because of your and your government's incompetence that we have these appalling immigration and crime problems. Terrorism? Not unconnected with that disastrous and illegal war you took us into without our consent. It seems that this latest scheme is part of your leaked plan to go "