Skip to content or view screen version

The end of ID cards?

Nottingham Defy-ID | 08.06.2010 13:36 | Repression | Technology

The incoming Con-Dem government has confirmed its commitment to scrap the National Identity Register (NIR) and ID cards for UK citizens. Whilst those who have been campaigning against the ID database naturally welcome the end of these particularly unpleasant and invasive aspects of the surveillance state, there is plenty to be cautious about.

The supposed end of the ID scheme has nothing to do with any love of freedom our new political masters claim to have. It has come about due to its massive unpopularity and sustained pressure from groups campaigning against ID. Whatever the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats might want us to believe, they are not fundamentally opposed to surveillance of citizens. Indeed, both parties support surveillance and the gathering of data on the population in other areas of policy. The Tory stance on ID cards looks particularly shaky and opportunistic. During the '90s, Conservative Home Secretary Michael Howard proposed an ID scheme long before New Labour's database plans. The Tories have supported ID cards before and they might well swing behind them again.

An ID scheme for non-nationals will remain in place. This explicitly discriminatory measure means that the government endorses spying on non-UK nationals. Crucially, it means that the ID scheme is not dead. It will live on and future governments, or even the current government, have the possibility of expanding it at a later date to encompass other groups deemed to be undesirable e.g. benefits claimants.

Dissatisfaction with the authoritarian attitude of the previous government has led to a partial triumph over the ID scheme. However, we must finish it off completely so that it can never be brought back. That means campaigning for an end to ID cards for foreign nationals and vigilance against the creeping return of national identity databases.

Nottingham Defy-ID

Comments

Hide the following 6 comments

ID cards

08.06.2010 16:32

Farmers fit tags to the ears of their live stock. So when they are allowed to use common grazing, they can be reclaimed by their owners. Alternatively the farmer can build secure fences to keep the live stock on his own land, at quite some expense though. If the stock are allowed to rome freely they have higher productivity so long as they can be reclaimed fairly easily. Another alternative is a super farm can swallow up all the little farms. Then it dosn't matter where the animals are caught because all the land and animals belongs to the same corporation.

manherd

for an autonomous anonymity campaign

08.06.2010 18:01

it's good to see people talking about this. the original defy-ID campaign seemed really pertinent, but then suffered a bit as the headline-grabbing compulsory ID cards for all were put on the back burner until now when they've been totally shelved.

however, the surveillance system otherwise has continued to develop, including the databases that corresponded to the ID card scheme. also ID cards themselves have been introduced for non-EU nationals.

although it felt a bit naive and not completely in depth, the recent 'Erasing David' on channel 4 took an up to date look at the issues. although it's no longer available on 4od there are a few links to some related content on the programme's page -  http://www.channel4.com/programmes/erasing-david

basically, despite the shelving of compulsory ID cards for all, still we need an autonomous anonymity campaign. perhaps the name 'defy-ID' isn't as pertinent as it was before and a new slogan could be adopted, but everything else about defy-ID was spot on and something that all those involved should be proud of.

anne (on a mouse)

ID by stealth :(

08.06.2010 19:01

Labour has always been about BIG GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS where as Conservative is about BIG PRIVET CORPORATIONS. And the banks will be introducing biometric ID cards anyway, as soon as the technology becomes economical, whereas the government would introduce it before it became economical. We all want to keep our bank accounts safe, so the softly softly approach will provoke on resistance.

A good man manager always "allows" his slaves to do what he wants, thinking it was there idea in the first place. He's a manager the workers are not really aware of being managed by.

Anarchist

Deluded

09.06.2010 14:18


"The supposed end of the ID scheme has nothing to do with any love of freedom our new political masters claim to have. It has come about due to its massive unpopularity and sustained pressure from groups campaigning against ID."

I don't think anyone believes that the new government is doing it out of a love of freedom.

But it's equally naive and deluded to believe "it has come about due to its massive unpopularity and sustained pressure from groups campaigning against ID."

No it didn't. It came about, principally, because the Government is scrapping any multi-million pound state project it can to reduce the UK's £925billion debt.

But you can pat yourself on the head and claim credit if it'll make you feel special.



Norvello

Jog on, Norvello...

09.06.2010 17:28

...I think you're trolling.

The Tories announced their opposition to ID long before slashing budgets was in vogue. It was preceded by a quite sustained campaign in the liberal media fronted by No2ID. ID cards are something that the British have historically been hostile towards, so it didn't take much of a push.

Not sure

I agree we will get ID cards by the back door

09.06.2010 22:55

Labour always did things directly, the brute force approach. Maybe a bit of spin and starting out by asking for twice as much as they really want, but basically direct. This made them look like the authoritarian bastards they were.

The Tories are more clever and maybe more insidious. They will just introduce ID for certain groups (foreigners, immigrants, ex-prisoners, doleys, etc.) and make this ID necessary for things like opening bank accounts, getting a driving licence, passport, renting accommodation, etc. Then gradually step it up by extending it to more people and requiring it for more and more things until it becomes virtually impossible to live without it unless you are a hermit. So technically it would never be compulsory, but practically it would be.

anon