Tomorrow's students (who are 12-15 now) will decide the fate of the ID card scheme

Fighting terrorism will not be volunteered as an official explanation for the need for ID cards, Jacqui Smith's interview this morning suggests. Instead she and the Home Office are now pushing three arguments in support of the scheme: convenience (no longer having to go down to the bank with lots of utility bills to open an account), security (it's not hackable because it's not online) and common sense (it will contain no more data than the passport system).

The Government's own Identity and Passport Service website offers easy counter arguments. On security, the list of accredited organisations with access to the National Identity Register (the megabase) is huge, ranging from travel agents to DVD rental companies to retailers "of all kinds". On the suggestion that it will contain no more data than the passport system, the website states that it will be used to "confirm that you do not have a criminal record". Quite how this fits into the list of information to be stored on the register I'm unclear.

As for convenience, the suggestion that it will dramatically cut the hassle and time it takes to open a new bank account stretches credibility, but it is a very interesting idea. Smith made clear that the idea that they could become compulsory during this Parliament has been ruled out. The Government wants to see whether, like Oyster cards on the London Undeground, the public recognises the convenience of them and switches voluntarily. And students will be the guinea pigs - convince them, and older generations will fall into line.

The job will not be easy. The National Union of Students has already called this plan morally reprehensible. Both opposition parties are set against, with Nick Clegg prepared to go to court. Even the BBC is also broadcasting anti-ID card propaganda dressed up as a ludicrous drama. Will students opt for the easy life or principled opposition?

Comments

[Chuck Unsworth]

I watched Ms Smith's defence (if defence were necessary when dealing with the sycophantic 'questioning' from the BBC) with incredulity. One wonders whether the Botox has actually seeped through into the inner cranium itself. But perhaps she is merely unthinkingly doing as instructed. Those three rationales are completely untenable. Let's briefly look at them:

Convenience (no longer having to go down to the bank with lots of utility bills to open an account). In common with most others I have not found it necessary to change my bank account more than about three times over forty or so years. Does Ms Smith think that the entire nation is constantly doing so? In any event, when changing bank accounts an ID card would be but one item of the many which banks currently wish to see before agreeing to open accounts.

Security (it's not hackable because it's not online) Oh dear! How charmingly naive this Home Secretary is. Does she not understand that the criminals are even now way ahead in the forgery game? And is she personally going offer guarantees and indemnities should this information be lost or used for criminal purposes by any one of the hundreds of thousands of officials and contractors who will have full legal access to the databases?

And common sense (it will contain no more data than the passport system). Well, right-ho, what is that information, exactly? Is she prepared to itemise each of the fields which the databases will contain? Does she assume that everyone already has a passport, so that's OK then?

If these guinea-pig students have any sense whatsoever (OK, that may be stretching things a bit) they'll tell the government precisely where these cards should be inserted and ideally, sideways and with maximum prejudice.

Even now, each schoolchild has been identified and his/her (extensive) details been placed on databases. Each child is given an unique number and their academic records, along with a great deal of other entirely personal information - much of it arbitrary judgement - are being quietly collected. Even their phsyical data, such as height and weight, is being surreptitiously brought together.

We have already gone too far. Ms Smith's latest wheeze is simply the icing on the cake for this control-freak government.

[Mitch]

This was on the internet back in 2006:-
"The Home Office faced fresh controversy last night after ministers were accused of accidentally repealing the law which makes it an offence to have a forged passport.

In an extraordinary development, it was claimed that Labour's Identity Cards Act had repealed the existing laws before the new laws to replace them come into force.

One court case involving two men who were caught with forged passports has already had to be adjourned."

It is so easy to forge a passport, the same will happen to ID cards. And what about the thousands of passports that go missing every year? Will ID cards 'go missing in the post' too?

And what part of "not online" are we expected to believe? Is the NIR going to be a paper-based system?

They treat us like imbeciles and so far we deserve it.

This is not for our security, this is for THEIR security!!!

[b Jones]

Might I suggest that firstly, mandatory reading for all 13 year old students be George Orwell's "1984". Orwell was one of the great English authors and either he was psychic or had amazing insight.