reposted from alt.security n.g. ....
BRIEF JOTTINGS ON THE UK GOVT'S ID CARD DOCUMENT, PUBLISHED YESTERDAY ===================================================================== According to the UK government: >From the point of view of society as a whole, the greatest benefit of >an entitlement card might well be negated if a section of society were >not to take up the card and the protections it could afford to the >broader community would be reduced or eliminated. The above sentence indicates various aspects of what the authorities are trying to do, but without going into it in detail, it's interesting to take a brief look at how they are using the term and concept of 'identity fraud'. Yesterday's they published a Home Office consultation document about ID cards and a National Population Register, entitled "Entitlement Cards and Identity Fraud: A Consultation Paper", which is available at: <www.homeoffice.gov.uk/dob/ecu.htm>. That site also has a link to a study on identity fraud undertaken by the Cabinet Office. I shall not refer to that document below, focusing instead on the 'entitlement card consultation document'. IDENTITY FRAUD So what actually is identity fraud? It appears to cover various acts that cannot rightly be called acts of identity THEFT (pretending to be a specific person other than yourself). It also appears to cover acts which are not classifiable as any type of ACTUAL FRAUD (obtaining a good or service by means of deception). On p.39, they say that: "identity fraud arises when someone takes over a totally fictitious name or adopts the name of another person with or without their consent". They don't even both defining 'fictitious name'. As near as makes hardly any difference, the first 11 words of this sentence mean that they consider it to be identity fraud to use a name other than a name you're allowed to use, or that the authorities have got on record for you. Of course, doing this is not at the time of writing actually a crime; in itself it is perfectly legal. Doubtless a pedant could argue that they do not say that identity fraud ALWAYS "arises" when someone uses a "totally fictitious name", nor do they say in so many words that using a "totally fictitious name" can CONSTITUTE an act of identity fraud even when no good or service is sought or obtained. But that's what they mean. What they are saying is similar to saying that "a breach of the peace arises when someone shouts in the street". Unsurprisingly, the title of the consultation document encapsulates the 'message', which involves binding the concept of 'entitlement', as used in the phrase "entitlement card", with the concept of "identity fraud". This is what you might call cultural engineering. Those who don't do what they are told are portrayed as cheating everyone, as obtaining that to which they are not 'entitled'. In a way similarly redolent of the Appendix to Orwell's '1984' about 'newspeak', the government claims to shun the idea of a "compulsory" ID card, but proposes a card scheme which, instead of being "voluntary", is "universal". Since the ID card is supposed to be about 'entitlement', giving 'false' details is called 'fraud' - even if you tell a gas company that you're Fred Bloggs rather than Bert Smith, i.e. even if you don't obtain anything whatsoever that you wouldn't have obtained if you'd call yourself Bert Smith. Got the message? If they don't know who you are, you're entitled to fuck-all. You're only 'entitled' if you're checkable, if you don't take the piss, if the authorities know exactly who you are and where you've been, and if they have available on their database a record of all of your movements and doings that they want to keep records of. Otherwise, you're cheating everyone, you're a parasite, you're a criminal. They also say, in a cleverly phrased sentence (p.29), that "Identity fraud where a person adopts a completely false identity, falsifies part of their identity (for example their age) or adopts the identity of another person is estimated to cost the UK at least £1.3 billion each year split equally between the public and private sectors." Again, a pedant could argue that they don't say that giving a false age constitutes identity fraud, and clearly if someone gives a false age this doesn't necessarily cost anyone anything. But then again, they don't refer to the occurrence of identity fraud that occurs when a person 'HAS ADOPTED' a "completely false identity". Their meaning, again, is clear. You're 30 and you say you're 29, you're an enemy of the people. IDENTITY FRAUD AS A NEW OFFENCE They devote a part of the document to a proposal that "identity fraud" be made into a "new criminal offence". They say: "By making it an offence to use a means of identification of another person or a fictitious person without reasonable cause, the very act of using a false identity would be a criminal offence without the need to prove any criminal intent or conspiracy." (Section 4.15). And proving the offence of identity fraud would "not require any criminal intent to be proved". (Section 4.16). They go on to say that the offence should be triable summarily-only. That means in England and Wales that an accused person would not be tried by a jury. They say that a maximum sentence should be 6 months in prison - presumably having chosen this figure precisely so that it stays a summary-only offence. Remember, that's without showing any criminal (or presumably, deceptive) intent on the accused's part. Are you wondering what a "reasonable cause" might be? They don't say. They do, however, say that "defendants would need access to a reasonable defence to cover the more innocent uses of a false identity such as adopting another identity when fleeing an abusive partner". MAKING SURE WHENEVER POSSIBLE THAT PEOPLE ARE 'KNOWN AND 'LEGIT' A lot could be said about this but I will quote only one thing from the consultation document. This is the proposal for the government to "procure a service from the private sector which checked applications for services against a number of databases used by the credit reference agencies or similar organisations and selected biographical data held by the Government. The Government would still need new powers to allow the necessary data-sharing. Unlike a database linked to passport and driving licence applications which would conduct one-off checks when these documents were issued, this service could be used every time a person applied for a Government service." We're talking electronic toll-booths across the entire country. We're talking a 'who the fuck are you?' at every turn. We're talking a major step forward within the privative enclosure of resources. BIOMETRIC INFORMATION This is an area of its own, and it's interesting to speculate regarding what procedures they might use to take photographs of everyone's irises. Already it has been alleged that some opticians are taking photographs of people's irises surreptitiously. I'll mention two things only. One is that they include an "illustration" of a scheme wherein non-UK citizens resident in the UK would be compelled to provide biometric information up to "a legal standard of proof". (Sections 5.13-14). The other is that they have already "commissioned a more detailed study of the feasibility of using biometric information for passports, driving licences and entitlement cards and will publish the findings of this study during the course of the consultation exercise."
