Jump to content

Identity Cards Act 2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CaNNoNFoDDa (talk | contribs) at 16:06, 14 October 2007 (removed inline external links). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Enabling legislation for the British national identity card was passed under the Identity Cards Act 2006.[1] The multi-billion pound scheme [2] has yet to enter procurement. The cards will have a lesser role than the database they are linked to, which is known as the National Identity Register (NIR). The Act specifies fifty categories of information that the NIR can hold on each citizen [3], including up to 10 fingerprints, digitised facial scan and iris scan, current and past UK and overseas places of residence of all residents of the UK throughout their lives and indices to other Government databases - which would allow them to be connected. The legislation also says that any further information can be added.[4]

The legislation further says that those renewing or applying for passports must be entered on to the NIR. It is expected that this will happen soon after the UK Passport Service, which has now been renamed the Identity and Passport Service (IPS), start interviewing passport applicants to verify their identity.[5] Various degrees of concern about the scheme have been expressed by human rights lawyers, activists, security professionals and IT experts.

Timescale and implementation progress

On October 11 2006, the Government announced a timescale described as "highly ambitious" by computer experts.[6] The Home Office said they will publish an ID management action plan in the months from November 2006, followed by agreements with departments on their uses for the system. There will be a report on potential private sector uses for the scheme before 2007 Budget.

On September 25 2006, Home Office Minister Liam Byrne said that "There are opportunities which give me optimism to think that actually there is a way of exploiting systems already in place in a way which brings down the costs quite substantially".[7]

Emails leaked in June 2006[8] indicate that the plan is already in difficulty, with plans for the early introduction of a limited register and ID card with reduced biometrics known as the 'early variant' described as a "huge risk".

The schedule for putting passport applicants' and renewers' details on the National Identity Register (NIR) has not been and may never be announced. Interview offices started opening in June 2007 for new passport applicants and it is not known whether details of (for example) their bank records are being kept and recorded. Fingerprints are not yet being taken and iris scans much later.

Applicants will be able to opt out of having a card issued until 2010 although they cannot opt out of having their details recorded on the NIR. Identity cards will be compulsory for anyone getting a new or renewed passport after January 1st 2010. Registration will become compulsory for non-UK passport holders resident in the UK by 2013. The Home Office currently estimates ID cards will be available from 2009.[9]

Historical and international comparisons

ID cards during the World Wars

Compulsory identity cards were first issued in the United Kingdom during World War I, and abandoned in 1919. Cards were re-introduced during World War II under the National Registration Act 1939, but were abandoned seven years after the end of that war in 1952, amid widespread public resentment. Opposition reached its peak with the 1951 court case of Willcock v Muckle, after Clarence Henry Willcock refused to produce his identity card. The judge in the case said that the cards were an "annoyance" and "tended to turn law-abiding subjects into law breakers".

International comparisons

Whilst at least 21 of 27 other countries in the EU have some form of ID card, these are either not compulsory, not biometric or not linked to a national database & unique identifier.

If introduced, Britain would become only the fifth common law country to adopt ID cards in peacetime, after Cyprus, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore.

There has been an international move towards the introduction of biometrics into identity and travel documents. The ICAO has recommended that all countries adopt biometric passports, and the United States has made it a future requirement for entering the US under the visa waiver programme. Biometric border control systems have been established in the United States and the United Arab Emirates and the EU is introducing biometric visas. Australia is looking at introducing a Health and social services access card.

In relation to the EU dimension to this issue, during the UK Presidency of the EU in 2005 a decision was made to: "Agree common standards for security features and secure issuing procedures for ID cards (December 2005), with detailed standards agreed as soon as possible thereafter. In this respect, the UK Presidency has put forward a proposal for EU-wide use of biometrics in national ID cards."[10]

The system

Under the NIR UK Residents will be required to:

  • Attend in person to be photographed, have their fingerprints taken and iris scanned.
  • Promptly inform the police or Home Office if a card is lost or damaged.
  • Promptly inform the National Identity Register of any change of address.
  • Promptly inform the National Identity Register of significant changes to their personal life.

National Identity Register

For full details of the information that will be contained on the National Identity Register see Information to be contained on the National Identity Register.

Key to the ID Card scheme will be a centralised computer database, the National Identity Register (NIR). To identify someone it will not always be necessary to check their card, since identity could be determined by a taking a biometric scan and matching it against a database entry.

The Home Office has said ID cards will be issued and the National Identity Register will be in place by 2009.

Identity Registration Number

One entry on the NIR is the Identity Registration Number. The Home Office have recognised that a unique identifier is needed as a primary key for the database.

The Home Office Benefits Overview document[11] describes how the IRN enables data sharing amongst police databases (including the Police DNA database), legal databases, and even corporate databases (including bank and travel operators).

Penalties

Failure to inform the Government of a change of address or other personal details will result in a fine of £1,000. Fines for refusing to register have been removed until a later Bill; instead passports and/or other designated documents (eg driving licence) may be denied. Failure to inform the Government if the card is tampered with, damaged, lost or stolen may result in a prison sentence of up to 51 weeks.[12]

Reaction

The announcement of the scheme has seen a mixed reaction from both the public and from figures connected to terrorism and law enforcement.

Public reaction

For a detailed account of Opinion Polls concerning the National Identity Card see Opinion Polls on British National Identity Card.

Over a period of time, public opinion, as measured by opinion polls, appears to have shifted away from support for the scheme towards opposition. In 2003, the announcement of the scheme was followed by a public consultation exercise, particularly among 'stakeholder groups'. At March 2003 the government stated that the overall results were:

in favour: 2606 responses (61%)
against: 1587 responses (38%)
neutral: 48 responses (1%)

By July 2006, an ICM poll[13] indicated that public support had fallen to 46%, with opposition at 51%:

A further poll by YouGov/Daily Telegraph, published on December 4, 2006, indicated support for the identity card element of the scheme at 50%, with 39% opposed. Support for the national database was weaker, with 22% happy and 78% unhappy with the prospect of having their data recorded. Only 11% trusted the government to keep the data confidential. 3.12% of the sample were prepared to undergo long prison sentences rather than have a card.[14]

Terrorism and crime

Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the former head of Britain's counter-intelligence and security agency MI5 is on record in her support of the introduction of identity cards, as is Sir Ian Blair, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and his predecessor, Sir John (now Lord) Stevens. The Association of Chief Police Officers are also supportive.

However, in November 2005 Dame Stella Rimington, who was Director General of MI5 before Eliza Manningham-Buller, questioned the usefulness of the proposed scheme.[15] This intervention caused a good deal of controversy amongst supporters and opponents of the scheme, especially as Manningham-Buller stated that ID cards would in fact disrupt the activities of terrorists, noting that significant numbers of terrorists take advantage of the weaknesses of current identification methods to assist their activities.

Lord Carlile was appointed on 11 September 2001 to independently review the working of British Terrorism Act and subsequent anti-terrorist laws.[16] Talking on GMTV on 29 January 2006, he expressed his views on the proposed legislation, saying[17] that ID cards could be of limited value in the fight against terrorism but that Parliament had to judge that value against the curtailment of civil liberties. Speaking on the same programme, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, former Met Police Commissioner, argued in favour for the need for identity cards, saying they had benefits in tackling serious crimes, such as money laundering and identity theft.

Concerns

Costs

Independent studies including one by the London School of Economics have suggested that costs could be as much as £12 billion to £18 billion. The reliability of this study has been challenged by the Government which disputed some of the assumptions used in the calculations such as the need to retake biometric information every 5 years. The government argued that this assumption had not been supported by any research in the London School of Economics report, and that biometric experts quoted in the LSE reports have sought to distance themselves from its findings. The Government also claimed that the authors of these estimates are established opponents to the scheme and cannot be considered unbiased academic sources.[18]

Tony McNulty, Home Office minister responsible for the scheme, responded by saying a "ceiling" on costs would be announced in October 2005.[19] There are now indications that the Government is looking at ways of subsidising the scheme by charging other Government Departments, with the implication that this would result in increased charges for other Government services to individuals or businesses.[20]

In October 2006, the Government declared it would cost £5.4bn to run the ID cards scheme for the next 10 years.[21]

In 2007, the Home Office announced the official estimated cost of the scheme rose by £400m to £5.3 billion.[22] After the general election the Home Office stated that it would cost £584 million a year to run the scheme.

The Government has abandoned plans for a giant new computer system to run the national identity card scheme. Instead of a single multi billion pound system, information will be held on three existing separate databases.[citation needed]

Effectiveness

David Blunkett himself stated that "ID Cards won't stop terrorism". His successor, Charles Clarke, said the same in the aftermath of the 7 July 2005 London bombings,[23] but claimed that they might help identify the perpetrators. The existence of ID cards in Spain did not prevent the Madrid train bombings. The existence of a single definitive identity register may make it easier for people to assume a false identity. [citation needed]

Ethnic minorities

The Government's Race Equality Impact Assessment[24] indicates significant concern among ethnic groups over how the Police would use their powers under an Identity Cards Act, with 64% of black and 53% of Indian respondents expressing concern, particularly about the potential for abuse and discrimination. In their January 2005 report[25] on the Bill, the Commission for Racial Equality stated that the fear of discrimination is neither misconceived nor exaggerated, and note that this is also an ongoing issue in Germany, the Netherlands and France.

The CRE are also concerned that disproportionate requirement by employers and the authorities for ethnic minorities to identify themselves may create a two tiered structure amongst racial groups, with foreign nationals and British ethnic minorities feeling compelled to register while British white people do not.

According to the CRE, certain groups who move location frequently and who tend to live on low incomes (such as Gypsies, travellers, asylum-seekers and refugees) risk being criminalised under the legislation through failing to update their registration each time they move due to lack of funds to pay the fee that may be charged.

Concerns raised by the Information Commissioner

In a press release on July 30, 2004,[26] Richard Thomas the Information Commissioner stated that a NIR raise substantial data protection and personal privacy concerns. He sought clarification of why so much personal information needed to be kept as part of establishing an individual's identity and indicated concern about the wide range of bodies who would view the records of services individuals have used. The Commissioner has also pointed out that those who renew or apply for a driving licence or passport will be automatically added to the National Identity Register, so losing the option of not registering. He subsequently stated: My anxiety is that we don't sleepwalk into a surveillance society .[27] In February 2003, on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, he warned that ID cards could become a target for identiy theft by organised crime.

Human rights

On February 2, 2005, Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights questioned the compatibility of the Bill with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to respect for private life) and Article 14 (the right to non-discrimination),[28] both of which are encapsulated with the UK's own Human Rights Act.

Feature creep

Even without new primary legislation, the Identity Cards Act allows the potential scope of the scheme to be much greater than that usually publicised by the Government.

For example, Gordon Brown was reported to be "planning a massive expansion of the ID cards project that would widen surveillance of everyday life by allowing high-street businesses to share confidential information with police databases."[29] He apparently described how "police could be alerted as soon as a wanted person used a biometric-enabled cash card or even entered a building via an iris-scan door."[30]

The British ID cards went from 3 functions during World War II to 39 by the time it was abolished.[31]

Concerns have also been raised following Tony Blair's response to an ID card petition stating that the fingerprint register would be used to compare the fingerprints of the population at large against the records of 900,000 unsolved crimes.

Opposition MPs claim that the use of the biometric data in this way directly breaches promises given during the Commons debate that there would be adequate safeguards preventing the use of ID card data for "fishing expeditions".[32][33]

Database extent and access

The amount of data which can be recorded on the NIR is unlimited. Home Office forecasts envisage that "265 government departments and as many as 48,000 accredited private sector organisations" would have access to the database, and that 163 million identity verifications or more may take place each year.[34]

Vulnerable individuals

The CRE have also recommended that more work is required to protect the interests of vulnerable individuals. For example, women escaping a violent lover or a forced marriage may be at risk if their previous names or addresses are disclosed.

Identity theft

Tony Blair said "ID cards are needed to stop the soaring costs of identity theft" in May 2005.[35] However, security experts have claimed that placing trust in a single document may make identity theft easier, since only this document needs to be targeted.[36]

Falsely obtaining such a 'secure' identity becomes very valuable because people are less likely to question its validity. This has happened in Australia, where identity theft has risen above British levels since the introduction of a widely used Tax File Number. Identity theft surrounding the Social Security Number is also a major problem in the USA. However, it can be argued that part of the problem in these countries arises from the lack of a national ID card as no positive identification exists which links one to one's unique ID number such as the Social Security Number. It is the lack of such means of identification, not necessarily the existence of the unique number itself, which promotes ID theft since there are no easily available means to verify one's SSN (such as a card with a person's SSN and photograph).

However, others[who?] claim that such comparisons cannot be directly compared with the introduction of identity cards and point out that such critiques usually offer not any alternative solutions to identity theft as it continues to grow.[citation needed]

Opponents to the scheme state that in order to apply for the new identity cards, existing documents such as passports will be used to prove identity; however, such identification is proficiently forged, allowing identity thieves posing as someone else to apply for cards. While new applications could be made using false documentation, existing cards and database entries would also be targets. Supporters note that such claims ignore that actual process, which allows for electronic checks of applications rather than a solely paper based system.

The NIR database would make an attractive target for computer hackers. Opponents also claim that any system involving human operators is liable to social engineering attacks, infiltration or bribery or blackmail of staff. Supporters claim that there are potential ways of organising working processes to stop such attacks.

Due to the supposed security of the British system, proving that your identity has been stolen could prove problematic. If a person's biometric information is discovered and exploited by an identity thief the subject has little recourse, since such information by definition cannot be changed or reissued.

Card tampering and forging

In addition to problems affecting the database, there may be the tampering or superficial forging of the actual biometric identity cards. In a recent case in Germany, criminals forged an ID card that included biometric data.Cite error: The <ref> tag name cannot be a simple integer (see the help page).

A number of academics also point to problems of removing human interaction from security systems. Such problems can be seen with Chip and PIN credit card systems.[37] While not a criticism of the technology itself, the work notes that operators cannot simply leave the security up to the technology and must remain vigilant in preventing suspicious behaviour.

Technology

Elsewhere, doubts remain concerning the practicability of the scheme, relying on unproven technologies such as iris scanning, and even the very best system will be liable to a small error rate. In some cases this error rate can disproportionately affect certain ethnic minorities (eg Afro-Caribbeans, for iris scanning). Existing government systems are not appropriate for the issuing to UK citizens from 2009.[38]

Opposition campaigns

In May 2006, NO2ID launched the "Renew for Freedom" campaign,[39] urging passport holders to renew their passports in the summer of 2006 to delay being entered on the National Identity Register. This followed the comment made by Charles Clarke in the House of Commons that anyone who feels strongly enough about the linkage [between passports and the ID scheme] not to want to be issued with an ID card in the initial phase will be free to surrender their existing passport and apply for a new passport before the designation order takes effect.[40]

In response, the Home Office said that it was hard to see what would be achieved, other than incurring unnecessary expense by renewing passports early.[41] However, it should be remembered that the cost of a passport is set to rise in October 2006 and nearly double once identity cards are introduced.

See also



References

  1. ^ Identity Cards Act 2006, Office of Public Sector Information, accessed October 14 2007
  2. ^ [1]
  3. ^ [2]
  4. ^ [3]
  5. ^ [4]
  6. ^ [5]
  7. ^ [6]
  8. ^ [7]
  9. ^ [8]
  10. ^ [9]
  11. ^ [10]
  12. ^ [11]
  13. ^ [12]
  14. ^ [13]
  15. ^ [14]
  16. ^ [15]
  17. ^ [16]
  18. ^ LSE: ID Cards - UK's high tech scheme is high risk [17]
  19. ^ (BBC)
  20. ^ [18]
  21. ^ [19]
  22. ^ BBC News: ID card cost rises above £5bn
  23. ^ [20]
  24. ^ pdf
  25. ^ doc
  26. ^ (.doc file)
  27. ^ [21]
  28. ^ [22]
  29. ^ [23]
  30. ^ [24]
  31. ^ [25]
  32. ^ [26]
  33. ^ [27]
  34. ^ [28]
  35. ^ [29]
  36. ^ [30]
  37. ^ [31]
  38. ^ [32]
  39. ^ [33]
  40. ^ [34]
  41. ^ [35]

News stories

Guides

Opposition groups

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Identity_Cards_Act_2006&oldid=164514608"