Last week the Scottish Parliament passed motion S3M-1017 which restated the country's opposition to Identity Cards and other Westminster government attacks on civil liberties. The motion as passed reads:
That the Parliament believes that the fundamental liberties enjoyed by generations of our citizens must not be eroded; welcomes the commitment by the previous Scottish Executive that ID cards would not be needed to access devolved services and its proportionate position on DNA retention; is concerned at the threat to civil liberties from the UK Government's expensive and unworkable proposal to introduce compulsory ID cards; believes that the Scottish Government should not put citizens' privacy at risk by allowing the UK ID database to access personal information held by the Scottish Government, local authorities or other devolved public agencies; therefore calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that all data protection procedures comply with the principles of data protection, namely that personal information must be fairly and lawfully processed, processed for limited purposes, adequate, relevant and not excessive, accurate and up to date, not kept for longer than necessary, processed in line with individuals' rights, secure and not transmitted to other countries without adequate protection, and that audit of data under its jurisdiction is independent of government and accountable to the Parliament; further calls on the Scottish Government to review plans for Scottish Citizens Accounts on the basis of these principles, and takes the view that there should be no blanket retention of DNA samples and that the Assistant Information Commissioner for Scotland should have specific powers to carry out spot checks on the compliance by Scottish government agencies and bodies with the Data Protection Act 1998.
The passing of this motion by our democratically elected parliament is very welcome. Unfortunately at the end of the day it's little more than a token thorn in the side of the Westminster government's plans. Even if the Scottish government chooses not to cooperate, we in Scotland will still be numbered, filed and monitored in the same way as the rest of the UK.
When the government first proposed compulsory Identity Cards they claimed 80% public support. This support has fallen away as people have learned more about the huge, intrusive National Identity Register (NIR) behind the scheme.
Reports say that a contractor working for the Department of Work and Pensions had personal data on thousands of benefits claimants stored on computer discs. That was completely legitimate, she needed them for her job. But when she stopped working for the DWP she forgot to give the - unencrypted - discs back. And nobody at the DWP seems to have realised she still had them. Nobody ever asked her to return this sensitive personal information - and that was over a year ago.
Some people will attempt to downplay this incident on the grounds that the compromised information didn't contain bank details. That's not the point. This was personal information and the DWP had a duty to protect it. Their failure in that duty shows that this government cannot be trusted to safeguard our private data.
It is the nature of all governments to try and protect their own privacy whilst invading that of the people. This doesn't have to be sinister, it can be due to incompetence, neglect or in the name of improving efficiency.
Sky News is running an interview with Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. In it she warns that the number of UK terror plots is rising. She talks of the chilling possibility of a dirty bomb being exploded in a city centre.
The threat from terrorism is indeed serious. People need to be careful. But that's been true for ages. So why this warning just now?
Well... The same package from Sky goes on to show footage of government research labs where scientists are working on ways to protect us: facial recognition, fingerprinting and other privacy invading biometrics. This, we are told, is not stock footage but a rare glimpse of secret premises - so why did Smith feel the need to authorise such filming just now?
Just in case anyone missed the point, Smith later goes on to explicitly try to defend the ID Card scheme and the huge, intrusive National Identity Register (NIR) on which it will be based.
"This will be the final blow for the ambitions of the government for the national ID cards scheme — they simply cannot be trusted with people's personal details"
I never expected to agree so strongly with a Tory front bencher.
In the case of this debacle, there is no suggestion of conspiracy or ill intent. It appears to just have been a case of human error. These things happen.
That's the point: these things happen.
If they happen with the benefits records of 25 million people (7.25 million families), how much more often will they happen with the detailed records of all 60 million adults in the UK?
The proposed ID Card scheme will be backed by a vast, intrusive National Identity Register (NIR) that will dwarf the benefits system. The NIR will hold dozens of pieces of personal information on every adult, including an audit trail that amounts to a record of that person's life. Although the NIR won't directly contain bank details, it will contain more than enough information to enable Identity Theft.
No government can be trusted with that much information.
The NIR will be a target for terrorists and organised crime. The government assures us that it will be protected by law, regulation and security. However yesterday's announcement shows that none of this can be enough. Sooner or later accidents will happen.
The only way to prevent NIR data getting into the wrong hands is to prevent the NIR ever being built. The government must now face reality and repeal the Identity Cards Act 2006.
The Sunday Mirror today has an encouraging report headlined Brown Scraps I.D. Card Plans. According to the Mirror:
"Gordon Brown is to abandon controversial plans to introduce compulsory ID cards for all. "Instead, the Prime Minister will focus on tightening up existing anti-terror laws and on new measures to be unveiled in Tuesday's Queen's Speech."
It sounds great, but don't start celebrating yet. This is just one report by one newspaper quoting "Whitehall sources". It's not an official position, probably it's Brown spin doctor floating the idea to see what reaction it gets.
We know how some people react - expect gnashing of teeth from certain tabloids and ex-ministers. We mustn't let them dominate this story, we need to cheer louder than they wail.
So we need to make sure Brown gets the message that abandoning ID Cards will be very popular - and win votes. I for one would be willing to reconsider voting Labour if this report turns out to be true.
What we really need is for a government to repeal the Identity Cards Act 2006 and abandon the National Identity Register (NIR). Until that happens, putting compulsory ID Cards on the back burner is a big step in the right direction.
The London Metropolitan Police have been found guilty of breaking Health & Safety laws and endangering the public in the case of Jean Charles de Menezes. De Menzes was the innocent Brazilian mistaken by police for a suicide bomber in the wake of the attempted 21/7/2005 terrorist attacks. Anti-terrorist officers chased the unarmed man into a tube station and shot him dead.
Health and Safety may seem to be strange grounds on which to bring a case such as this but it was the only legal avenue available to the de Menezes family.
I for one have no doubt that all those involved in this case acted with the highest motives. The individual police officers believed that they were facing a would-be suicide bomber. They believed they were risking their own lives to protect the public.
They were wrong.
The police had the best of intentions yet got things wrong and killed an innocent man. De Menzes had nothing to hide yet, tragically, everything to fear.
At the end of the day the police are human. No matter how much intelligence and technology they have available, they make mistakes like the rest of us.
The tragic case of de Menzes is a reminder of why we must resist calls for more and greater police and state powers - powers such as extended detention without charge and compulsory ID Cards. Such powers may not have fatal consequences but could still ruin lives.
Extreme power leads to extreme abuse, even if that abuse is accidental rather than corrupt. Excessive police and state power is something for all innocent people to fear.
Gordon Brown has ruled out a snap election this autumn and is unlikely to call one next spring either. He's denied that this is because the latest opinion polls show the Tories 6% above Labour - but nobody's going to believe him.
So the Brown bounce has run out of steam, to mix a metaphor. He is now facing the prospect of not getting a majority in the next election whenever it happens. How can he change minds and win the votes of people like me?
Simple: drop plans for ID Cards and a huge, intrusive National Identity Register (NIR).
It's clear that ID Cards have no positive political value. Few people will switch to Labour because they like the idea, many of us will switch from Labour because we find the scheme totally unacceptable.
If you feel the same way and have a Labour MP, this might be a good time to write and remind him or her that there's now time for them to change Brown's mind, get Blair's dangerous ID Card scheme dropped and win back your vote.
David Cameron gave an impressive performance at the Tory conference yesterday. For once he actually looked like a serious conviction politician rather than than a Tony Blair wannabe. Unfortunately the content of his speech was less impressive.
For all Cameron's claims to the middle ground, his speech contained many of the old Tory standbys: reduced regulation of business, more private schools, welfare cuts, more people in jail and opposition to the Human Rights Act. Cameron is still true blue at heart.
And yet... Cameron opposes Labour's scheme to impose compulsory ID Cards and a huge, intrusive National Identity Register (NIR). He's committed to scrapping ID Cards and to defending the right to trial by jury.
Civil liberties - freedom - is the most important issue of all. Cameron has got it right, Brown is wrong. There is no way I will ever vote for any party that supports ID Cards and the NIR.
It's hardly surprising that so few people in Britain bother to vote. The party system means you're offered job lot of policies and values, it's an all or nothing proposition. Yet I'm one of those who stubbornly insists on voting anyway. So if Gordon Brown does hold a snap general election in November, what will I do?
It's difficult. I don't totally agree with the Lib-Dems either, and they can't possibly win. A hung parliament with them having the balance of power would probably be my preferred option. But what if I lived in a constituency where our voting system means the only real choices are Labour or Tory?
Let's assume the sitting Labour MP wasn't one of the ID rebels. What would I do?
With heavy heart I have to say that I'd vote Tory to keep Labour out. It would be the lesser evil. My hope would be that the Tories would repeal the Identity Cards Act 2006 after which we could vote them out again.
So if there is an election next month then it looks like I'll be pushing for "Anyone But Labour".
It appears that Gordon Brown will be less gung-ho than Tony Blair in his erosion of our civil liberties, but just as determined.
The PM's National Security Statement to Parliament set out proposals for the forthcoming Counter Terrorism Bill. The language and style are very different to Blair, appearing much more conciliatory and making a big play for "consensus". Such "consensus" could become a dangerous trap.
There were definitely some good things in Brown's speech including the setting up of a border police force and the possible use of intercept evidence in court. I particularly welcome the "hearts and minds" suggestions such as the sponsoring of English speaking imams and teaching of citizenship in madrassas.
Unfortunately there were two major problems with Brown's speech which mean that in calling for a consensus against terrorism he is in effect calling for a consensus against freedom.
Brown's first error was his continued support for imposing biometric ID Cards on innocent British citizens, along with hints at greater data sharing. This is now being wrapped up in the friendly sounding phrase "ID security within our own borders" yet it remains identity control by the state. ID Cards are the greatest threat to privacy and liberty in 21st century Britain. An ID Card is no less than a licence to live.
Brown also proposed a "further overview" of how to protect key infrastructure such as trains. I for one strongly suspect that this overview will suggest ID checks on key rail routes. That would create yet another problem for innocent people that ID Cards would "solve". It would also be yet another step towards ID Cards as internal passports.
What will probably grab tomorrow's headlines was not Brown's support for ID Cards but his ideas on detention without charge. Brown suggested increasing the length of time that UK police can hold terrorist suspects without charge to 56 days.
56 days may not sound much. Until you realise it's eight weeks - that's almost two months of detention and interrogation without charge.
Brown did at least consult with Liberty, although he made it obvious that he didn't approve of their suggestion that such internment would require the declaration of a state of emergency. Brown's preferred option appears to be to allow two months detention without charge as long as there is parliamentary oversight.
That's not acceptable. Oppression remains oppression when overseen by Parliament.
Brown ended his speech by stating a desire to create an "all-party consensus that will extend into every community of our country".
That sent a chill down my spine. Will those of us who support civil liberties be branded as terrorist sympathisers for seeking to break the "consensus"? No government would risk making such a direct accusation - but certain tabloids wouldn't hesitate for a second. And they will receive at least implicit support from certain authoritarian politicians.
Expect a ramping up of the smear campaign against civil libertarians.
So be it. Under no circumstances will I be part of any consensus against freedom.
Brown had the ideal opportunity to break with Blair's plan to impose compulsory National Identity Cards and an invasive National Identity Register (NIR). Asked by Cameron about a border police force Brown could have said that in the light recent events the best use of resources was being re-evaluated. Unfortunately Brown failed to do this and chose to give his strong support to the dangerous ID scheme.
All Brown's positive constitutional reforms will count for nothing against ID Cards and the NIR. Their introduction will bring about a change in the relationship between citizen and state that sees the government issuing us with a licence to live.
That would be a constitutional change for which he would never be forgiven.
Congratulations and thanks to all those - be they civilian, police or intelligence services - who were involved in finding and making safe the Haymarket bomb. Had it exploded it would have been an appalling atrocity. The thought makes me shudder all the more because I know Haymarket well from when I lived in London.
Every time the terrorists succeed in murder the authoritarians say it strengthens the argument in favour of repressive measures such as ID Cards.
Every time a terrorist attack is foiled without the use of repressive measures such as ID Cards it strengthens the argument against them.
Since the government first suggested compulsory ID Cards and the National Identity Register (NIR) some of us have been complaining about "function creep". Civil liberty campaigners and privacy advocates have argued that the use of ID Cards would seep into every facet of our lives.
Such worries have normally been dismissed as paranoid fears, with the government claiming that using ID Cards would in some way be "voluntary". Yet now we have official government recognition that our worries were and are justified.
Liam Byrne MP, the Minister of State for Immigration, Citizenship & Nationality, has made a speech entitled Securing Our Identity: A 21st Century Public Good. Before tackling the details of the speech, let's look at the key message. Byrne maintains he can already see how: "secure identity will suffuse working life, private life and our use of public services". In other words, the NIR will become the all-pervasive surveillence system many of us have been warning about.
According to Byrne:
"Like the railways in the 19th century and the national grid in the 20th century, I think there are strong arguments for thinking of the National Identity System as a modern day public good - that very quickly becomes part and parcel of everyday life in Britain."
How does he reach this bizarre conclusion? By some very dodgy arguments.
Most puzzling is that he seems to think the ID Card will somehow help prevent online credit card fraud - he sprinkles his speech with words like "internet", "online" and "e-commerce". Yet the government's proposed plan would do nothing to prevent online credit card fraud - or any other form of "customer not present" fraud.
He claims that some 282,000 people in the UK have been victims of ID fraud during the last six years - again failing to specify how many of those were victims of old-fashioned credit card fraud that would not have been prevented by ID Cards.
He trots out the discredited estimates for the cost of ID Fraud, estimates which were soundly demolished by The Register.
He states that "In the US there are already 120,000 customers registered to pay at checkouts using biometric technology". In a country of over 300 million people that number is insignificant. The UK government wants to fingerprint 100% of the British population - with or without consent.
Byrne's main argument for the National Identity Scheme appears to be that at the moment we have a number of incompatible schemes springing up for specific purposes - instead he believes we should have one vast central system. I doubt that many security experts would agree that setting up such a "honey pot" is a good idea. He complains about "Systems with different technologies and languages that don't talk to each other" - which from a security perspective is a good thing. Making it difficult to link up information from different systems is the best way to protect that information. Identity theft becomes much easier when every system is keyed on the same unique, lifelong personal ID number.
Byrne goes on to list three attributes that he says any ID system must have: it must be useful, accessible and accountable. The government's plan would certainly be accessible, but useful? Only to solve problems that the government is creating. As to accountable, the level of oversight proposed for the scheme is minimal.
A highly desirable attribute Byrne fails to include is a way of ensuring the individual remains in control of their own information. There's also no mention of personal privacy. The word "privacy" doesn't appear once in the speech.
Byrne concludes with this frightening prediction:
"In 20 years time, I suspect that the National Identity Scheme will be just a normal part of British life – another great British institution without which modern life, whatever it looks like in 2020, would be quite unthinkable"
That's not a Britain I want to see. Which is why I'm a member of NO2ID.
Digg
del.icio.us
Newsvine
Reddit
