On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 12:50:32AM +0100, Jo Walsh wrote:
there are reams of good technical reasons - identity, security, single point of failure, obsolescence, etc - why this shouldn't be implemented - let alone social / ideological reasons. it would be good to have a
Zool, you've missed the *absolutely* vital one. Cost. The ID card scheme was going to cost 40 quid a head for the card. I do agree with all the other reasons why not (see also ukcrypto passim). Shevek's point about breaking it once the infrastructure in place is all very well, but it is our taxes that will have been spent, and then the extra cost which is presumably going to be levied, and therefore our taxes that will be wasted.
I don't think the cost is that an important argument against identity cards and it's the sort of issue where the government will claim with dodgy Excel spreadsheets that money will be saved due to decreased crime anyway (apart from the sort of crime associated with identity card fraud of course!).
The key point isn't technological or economic but political, whether you should be legally forced to carry an state issued identity card when you walk down the street to your local shops (as I believe is common in continental Europe).
"Sorry mate I forgot my wallet the card's in that"
"You have to produce the card down the station within a week otherwise you are in violation of the Defence of the Realm Act 2005"
I see no reason why I should have to carry extra papers proving who I am in addition to the usual bank issued plastic etc in my pocket as I go about my business where I live. I have a passport at home anyway to prove who I am should I leave the country.
And this talk of voluntary cards is just an attempt to sneak compulsory cards in by the backdoor as any voluntary scheme would be the thin edge of the wedge as it's quickly changed to compulsory as "it's in the public interest to enhance its effectiveness in fighting crime".
Historically ID cards where introduced in the last war and their use carried well into peacetime (1952) by which time they were extremely unpopular with people. It took the case of Willcock v. Muckle to get rid of them of them last time.
-- 1024/D9C69DF9 Steve Mynott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
