07 December 2005

More on ID and MP

Here's my next bit of correspondance with my MP on ID cards.

Thank you so much for writing again even given your skepticism about us agreeing. I note that further things about ID cards continue to emerge and because of that I would invite you to continue to consider the matter and perhaps to offer other perspectives to the ones I outline below. Of course I would be delighted to see you change your mind on the matter as I think that there are ample and good reasons not to pursue the path that Blunkett and Clark have set us upon; especially as the stated reasons for doing so seem to change every couple of months. It appears to be an idea in search of adequate justification.

I have included weblinks that point to articles that explore the points raised more fully rather than trying to summarise in situ. I hope that will enable you to follow up and respond more easily.

As a sidebar to the main issue; I am interested to note that you reply by letter. I would be more than happy to be emailed in reply as I prefer to think that there is some small saving to the public purse in so doing.

Anyway, to the matter at hand. You wrote:
"Arguments that it becomes easier to steal identity when one has an identity card are nonsense. It clearly makes such activity harder because identity, for the first time, will actually be linked to the person it belongs by the use of simple biometric information. "
Yes, but not really what I was getting at. The point is that there is a quite high failure rate in the biometrics and multiplying them apparently, statistically, makes it worse. Any failure, or any down time on the check back IT systems, or any false matches or negatives are gateways for criminals to exploit, and they will, but the stakes for the rest of us will be higher than now. It might also be worth mentioning that MicroSoft think
that security on ID cards is likely to be a problem. And they aren't the only ones. So, do I believe a loyal government MP [of a govt whose stance on this looks increasingly changeable] or the IT firms ? I'm sure you can appreciate my dilemma and that of more and more of your constituents as more and more information gets into public consciousness.

And that's without thinking about the inconvenience and expense and potential legal non-entity status conferred with each failure.

You wrote:
"protection and oversight there will be a scheme commissioner to supervise the functioning of the scheme, independent of the Government"
Such is superficially reassuring but in reality since the legislation would set their remit and the limitations to it and as the current data commissioner is not in favour of ID cards, I think that this is actually scant reassurance. Unless you can pretty much guarantee a stringent brief and effective powers to such a commissioner....?

Then there's
"computer systems I would counter by Pointing out that Government departments and agencies currently operate massive databases without any problems at all such as the Police National Computer and the DVLA database."
It's good to have successful examples but unfortunately they don't cancel out the concerns raised by the more recent bad examples. Especially given that the ID card project is going to involve some complexity and cross departmental co-ordination and as we've recently had reports of DVLA data being sold -potentially to criminals- you'll understand that we don't feel reassured that our data would be secure even in a well functioning system.

You go on to write:
"they are initially going to be voluntary and will not become compulsory until after another vote in Parliament" but that doesn't reassure about function creep and the 'little Hitlers problem'. The effect of a voluntary scheme is likely to be that the cards become de facto essential and also a means of petty abuse. We would have to see which has the greater effect on the general population. Though, obviously, I hope that the problems with the scheme will yet force a shelving of the idea.
For further reading check the del.icio.us tags on the matter and of course the collection of articles here.

No comments:

"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"

 I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...