To print: Click here or Select File and then Print from your browser's menu

This story was printed from silicon.com, located at http://www.silicon.com/

Story URL: http://management.silicon.com/government/0,39024677,39125982,00.htm

Leader: Blunkett should rethink ID card "folly"
Still too many unanswered questions about cost and scope...

By silicon.com

Published: Wednesday 17 November 2004

Home Secretary David Blunkett threw down the gauntlet to privacy activists and ID card opponents today claiming that the store loyalty cards we keep in our wallets are a bigger invasion of privacy than the UK's proposed biometric ID card scheme ever will be.

He has a point. The databases held by these companies present a much more accurate and comprehensive picture of our personal lives, movements, transactions and shopping habits than ID cards might. And that data is mined by those firms to tailor marketing, advertising and special offers to us.

The flipside of this argument is twofold. First, people give their consent to stores to hold and use this data when they sign up for the cards. Blunkett says the same will apply to ID cards and that no personal information will be shared without the individual's consent. The problem is that ID cards will be mandatory. If you don't pay your £15 and agree to the small print you will face a £2,500 fine.

Second, the way these companies use this personal data is regulated by the UK's Data Protection Act (DPA), which is enforced by the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner today said he doesn't believe the current plans for the ID card scheme will be in compliance with the DPA and he says it is "unacceptable" that his office has to seek permission from the government to audit or scrutinise the scheme when it is up and running.

It isn't that silicon.com has a problem with the stated aims of the ID card scheme. Most law-abiding people would be happy to use an ID card if it helped to fight terrorism, organised crime, illegal immigration and illegal working - although one wonders whether it is a proportional response to those stated threats.

The problem with the current ID card plans lies in the many unanswered questions and Blunkett's glib dismissal of opponents to 'get real' and accept it. Taking the ideological argument - which comes down to personal beliefs - out of the debate, there are still some serious issues which need to be addressed.

The pace at which the Home Office and Blunkett are pushing the ID card bill through Parliament is one worry. It is likely to get the go-ahead before the next general election and yet the costs are still vague - and by all accounts hugely underestimated - while the deployment of biometric technology on such a scale represents a serious gamble with billions of pounds of taxpayers' money.

At an event last week the card payment industry body APACS said the financial industry has rejected the use of biometrics for credit and debit cards because of the technology's false rejection rates. On a small scale a one per cent failure rate isn't an issue. But it is when you're talking about 60 million ID cards which are the only means to verify each person's identity.

The bottom line is biometric ID cards could be the answer for the UK, but we need more time. The government should consider pushing back its ID card legislation until further research has been done on the technology, the scope and the costing of the whole project.

The success of any ID card scheme ultimately rests on the trust of this country's citizens yet initial support for it has dropped with the last Home Office opinion poll showing 48 per cent opposition to the scheme. In the words of the Information Commissioner, to rush on regardless in the face of this represents an "expensive and dangerous folly".