Leader: Non-moralistic arguments on Big Brother

The latest research from silicon.com has shown more of our readers favour the introduction of ID cards in some form than oppose them. We also today wrote about the popularity of a service - which is one of several - that allows bosses and worried parents to keep tabs on their staff and children by locating the position of their mobiles.

On the face of it, compulsory ID cards and tracking are both to the privacy-minded as a pair of red rags are to a bull and anyone who opposes too much attention from the state or an employer. But let's clarify a few points here.

Most of those responding to polls such as ours about ID cards - and in focus groups the Home Office and others have doubtless run - are of the 'What are you afraid of if you have nothing to hide?' type. Those on the other side of the debate insist that isn't the point. Give us good reasons for there to be excess monitoring of what we do, they say.

In an age of paranoia about risks from various quarters, it isn't hard to see why a clamour to know about everything that moves is a priority. But be clear - an opt-in for a mobile tracking service used by companies and parents isn't the same as compulsory national ID cards or biometrics. In the case of mobile tracking, employees and even children have the right to say no. We expect a case where just that happens soon when someone has still insisted on monitoring.

When it comes to ID cards, could it be that we're not acting on the right information? In his most recent newsletter, always-compelling security expert Bruce Schneier asks us to think what will happen when a security system goes wrong - when someone forges an ID card, for example - rather than consider the benefits it will deliver when it works as planned.

"Everything I've learned about security over the last 20 years tells me that once it is put in place, a national ID card programme will actually make us less secure," he writes.

It's a point worth noting. Let's try the argument without considering the moral implications for a moment. Can it be implemented properly? What is the worst case scenario? Are we still all so convinced it's a good idea?

We'd bet that in the near future we won't be writing hypothetically on this subject.