Copyright 1994 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. and its licensors
All Rights Reserved
The Globe and Mail (Canada)

September 23, 1994 Friday

LENGTH: 982 words

HEADLINE: ID cards raise British hackles, again Civil libertarians and others claim identification system could lead to abuses

BYLINE: JAMES LANGTON; Daily Telegraph

DATELINE: London ENGLAND

BODY:


BY JAMES LANGTON
The Daily Telegraph
LONDON
A simple card saying you are who you say you are is fast becoming a major civil-rights issue in Britain.

The debate's shrillness will intensify at next month's ruling Conservative Party congress, where nearly 50 resolutions on the subject have been tabled.

The British abandoned identity cards after the Second World War. The cards were flimsy and badly printed on cheap cardboard. There was a number
but no photograph, and crude official stamps. As a result, they were easily forged.

But that was not why they were scrapped. They were scrapped because they were unpopular.

People complained that the police were using them to throw their weight around, in particular in the direction of motorists. In 1951, the Lord Chief Justice judged that this practice was "wholly unreasonable" and could "turn law-abiding subjects into law breakers."

The following year identity cards were abolished by Winston Churchill's new Conservative government.

Now another Conservative government is suggesting it may bring them back. Prime Minister John Major believes ID cards would help the police
fight crime. Nearly 50 resolutions at the conference call for their reintroduction.

More significantly, it was announced last month that all new driving licences will carry a photograph from 1996. The new design, a plastic credit card format, will reveal the holder's name, age and address and, of course, appearance. Only in one respect is it any different from an identity card. Carrying it will not be compulsory.

But why should we not want to carry the new driving licences? Similar cards allow us take out money, extend our credit and have our broken-down cars rescued. Most people with a job carry some form of identity card, if only to show the security guard at the gate. There is no requirement to carry any of these - but just try leaving them at home.

The new driving licence, the Department of Transport says, will help enforce motoring laws. Undoubtedly it will also be useful in any situation where identity or age is called into question.

In time, supermarkets and gas stations will ask to see a driving licence as collateral for the simplest transaction. Theatres, cinemas and airlines will want a look before handing over tickets booked on the telephone. Those who do not wish to drive may send off for a provisional licence to make life easier.

Is the new driving licence blazing a trail for a national identity card? The government says no, but both supporters and opponents of ID cards believe otherwise.

The argument in favour of identity cards is a simple one. Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. Those who oppose such a system would be the criminals and welfare scroungers, illegal immigrants and terrorists. It would make life difficult for those who seek to abuse the law. It might, for example, cut social security fraud.

But those who oppose identity cards are not all terrorists or cheats. They range across the political spectrum, and their objections are comprehensive.

Liberty, also known as the National Council for Civil Liberties, disputes the effectiveness of identity cards and the principles behind them.

On the one hand, Liberty says, "such a scheme would breach the long-established principle that identity documents are acquired by choice and in return for a specific benefit." On the other: "There is no evidence that identity cards would lead to a reduction of crime in general, and the forgery of cards would present few obstacles to professional criminals."

It is certainly true that it is difficult to see any difference in the crime rate in nations such as France, which has a compulsory identity card, and those that do not.

Liberty also claims: "In many countries that have a compulsory system there are complaints that minorities, dissidents and young people are harassed by overzealous police-checking." Is this really a danger in Britain, a democracy with a free press?

In fact, there are many who believe that the real victims of identity cards would not be minorities, but the great majority. Sean Gabb, a supporter of the right-wing Libertarian Alliance, says: "The real victims of an identity-card scheme will be us, the honest public. What remains of our freedom is held ever less by legal right than by the simple inconvenience for the authorities of taking it away."

Identity cards, Mr. Gabb says, will allow the state to examine our lives in ways that would never be permitted by Parliament. They are, he says, "the equivalent of laws to make us send our letters unsealed through the post, and to give sets of our house keys to the police."

Many concerns over identity cards are based on new technology. The latest "smart" cards, which contain an electronic chip, could combine the functions of a driving licence, social security card and national health card - and, of course, an identity card.

There is no reason why it might not also act as a bank guarantee or credit card. To carry only one card would be very convenient. The problem is to keep it a means for someone to read everything, rather than a means for everyone to read something.

The Data Protection Registrar, the official body that regulates information held on computer, already has called for a full debate on any national identification system. The outgoing registrar, Eric Howe, said earlier this year: "If pressures continue for a national identification system there should be a careful evaluation of any benefits that might flow from such a system and weighing of these against the undoubted risks to privacy and personal freedom."

The electorate appears to share his concerns. The most recent survey, for the computer company ICL, found that just over half of 1,029 people surveyed were against the introduction of identity cards.

The card envisaged by the survey incorporated photograph, fingerprint, bank details, driving licence and national insurance number. Convenient yes, but too high a price to pay?