Citizen or Subject, person or number?
Thursday, November 13th, 2003 12:37 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
caddymanA long, long rant about the Government and ID cards.
My passport tells me that I am a British Citizen. Some years, perhaps decades ago, I believe the same document might have labelled me a British Subject. The change is small, just one word, but the implied change in attitude and status is immense.
The term 'citizen' implies membership, whilst a 'subject' owes obedience to another. In the United Kingdom the transition from one to the other has been slow and arduous. It has taken generations of organic change and development which has seen the status of the average Briton improve from that of serf, a mere chattel of his lord, to a member of an (at least theoretically) free and equal society. The transition is incomplete but advanced, and there are powerful institutional and societal conventions which hinder the transition. One of these is the all-powerful position of the State. In the UK, other than in times of rebellion, power rests with the State, not the populace. Power devolves down from the Crown to the Crown in Parliament. The full constitutional ramifications of this are beyond the scope of this piece, but it is relevant. The direction of the flow of power directs the thinking of those who wield it, be they socialist or reactionary. They wield the power of the State for the State; they do not exercise it on behalf of the people.
The normal inclination of government is to accumulate power to itself. When that power emanates from the people, they are wont to notice and take steps to prevent a reduction in their rights, but if then flow is reversed, the people tend to notice less; they are used to the government dictating its terms and policies. This is especially true when obvious reform is occasional and half-hearted and the chance for the citizen to have a meaningful say (without organised and sometimes violent protest) is limited to one vote every four to five years.
Thus develops over time the father-knows-best society; In the beginning there is no choice: the subject owes obedience, whilst the citizen has come to depend on the wisdom of his master. The gauntlet develops into a kid glove, but the result is the same. You do as the government tells you; the government does not do as you instruct it. It does not represent, it rules.
And to rule, it needs to know who you are. Your identity as you perceive it, is not your identity as the government perceives it. You are a statistic, a resource, a drain on resources. You are a subject to be catalogued, codified, directed and ruled.
So. Where is this all leading, you ask? Well it's the latest piece of breath-taking arrogance by the UK Government; one which I venture to suggest is symptomatic of the feudal nature of government in this country.
For some years now there have been various attempts to introduce ID cards in the UK. John Major's government toyed with the idea in 1995 but abandoned the idea twelve months later in the face of fierce opposition. Now the Blair government is trying the same thing. Only this time there is a difference. Despite continued fierce opposition, they are likely to try to introduce ID cards anyway.
Originally the idea was to have an entitlement card, though the name fooled no-one. It was to be voluntary, and would prove entitlement to healthcare and other state services. Nearly twelve months ago, while the government was still "consulting" on its proposals, Privacy International warned the government over the likelihood of a growing public backlash over what was already transforming into plans to introduce compulsory ID cards in the UK.
By January this year, it appeared that the Government was getting cold feet: the BBC reported that increasing opposition to the introduction of ID Cards in the UK was making the Government think again.
Despite Home Secretary David Blunkett's personal support for the idea, Home Office Minister Lord Falconer speaking at a conference on the future of ID cards organised by tech industry body Intellect, told delegates that the scheme may never come to fruition.
It is now clear, however, that this was just the first stage in the Government's dissembling over the presentation of a decision already taken. The Home Office claimed to have received 2,000 responses largely positive. Privacy International alone claimed to have orchestrated a campaign of 7,000 responses, largely negative. Clearly both sides couldn't be right.
Privacy International quite understandably made a bit of a fuss and questions were asked in the House of Lords. The Government response was quite astounding, as this link to Hansard demonstrates: in effect the Government's position is simple; one petition is one response, one campaign is one response regardless of the number of individuals named in the petition or campaign. And by a stroke, public opposition is public support.
Nonetheless, even having committed this piece of statistical chicanery, there was enough doubt to ensure that the process was slowed while the Cabinet mulled over the implications.
By July it was clear that Blunkett's arguments were winning against the doubters in Cabinet: The Sunday Times reported that the Government was to press ahead with the introduction of compulsory ID Cards in the UK for everyone over the age of 16.
"The home secretary has rejected voluntary "entitlement cards" and instead will require all citizens to have identity cards. Each card will contain biometric data, such as an image of a person's iris or fingerprint, so police and other authorities can confirm the holder's identity."
The planned cost of this card, now openly an ID card was to be £40.
The Sunday Times article continued "The government will hold information about the population on a central computer database - a move that will further alarm civil liberties groups.
In a letter to fellow cabinet ministers dated June 25, Blunkett says: "I believe that the case for introducing a universal identity card in the UK is overwhelming. The consultation exercise showed strong public support for a card scheme and a preference for the term 'identity card' rather than 'entitlement card'."
Meanwhile, the BBC were still reporting responses from the Government barely a week earlier: "In response to a parliamentary question from MP Anne McIntosh, Home Office minister Beverley Hughes has confirmed that over 5,000 of the 7,000 responses to a public consultation on the issue were against the scheme."
Hope as they might, the Government found that the opposition to ID Cards was real and not going away. The next step therefore, was to look into the possibilities for introducing them by stealth, and where better to test the approach and technology than the passport?
The BBC reported on 27 August the "passport scheme" was hiding an ID trial:
"The six-month study, unveiled by Home Secretary David Blunkett, puts fingerprints, iris or facial recognition data onto a microchip in the passport.
The Home Office said the technology could be incorporated into ID cards, but insisted it had no specific plans to stage a pilot ID scheme."
The article also noted that the introduction of ID cards would require Parliamentary legislation. Introducing these additions to passports would not.
On my own blog (not LJ) I made the following observation: "Although it is not compulsory to own a passport - nobody is forced to leave the country for a holiday - in practice a substantial portion of the population does have one. The next argument, of course, if and when these changes are introduced by the Passport Office, will be that the introduction of ID cards will be cheaper than the critics suggest, and who cares about the invasion of privacy, because we already have the information on a substantial part of the population."
It seemed as recently as a week ago that Blunkett might have lost the argument for ID Cards - especially compulsory ID cards as this article in the Telegraph on 7 November suggested:
However, for the first time, the admission that the long term aim was and is compulsion:
But now, less than a fortnight later, the details are out. This article in the Times outlines the latest position. Since readers outside the UK have to pay to see the article, I have included edited highlights below:
The Telegraph covers the same story here in the article, Compulsory ID cards by back door. There are two paragraphs of particular interest:
And since the police have made an important point and rather obvious about the worth of ID Cards to them where they are effectively voluntary and do not need to be produced:
And so there we have it. Power wielded by the state for the state. In less than a year the position has changed from a consultation on the possible introduction of a voluntary entitlement card to the clear intention to impose a compulsory identity card. And this despite clear evidence that it is supported only by the Government and not the majority of the populace.
And it's not as if an ID Card will even do the job we are told it's for: it will not prevent illegal immigration, it will not cut down on fraud, it will not prevent terrorism. What it will do is potentially criminalize millions of Britons who will no longer own their own identities. The person will become the physical representation of the statistic, the information on the database. People will no longer look at or properly perceive you; you will be subordinated to the demands of the card.
I hand the argument to Melanie Phillips:
Stephen Robinson raised further points in the Telegraph on 24 July:
Before I close this piece, I should like to make one further link, and pick up the twin themes of privacy and function creep. Should you think that I and others like me are being unnecessarily alarmist, I should like to remind you that these cards will have biometric data on them.
Digest then, the following intelligence: a report from the Times dated 18 July 2003.
So, Citizen or Subject? An equal member of society or chattel of the State? Are you what you think you are. Are you who you think you are?
...and relax.
My passport tells me that I am a British Citizen. Some years, perhaps decades ago, I believe the same document might have labelled me a British Subject. The change is small, just one word, but the implied change in attitude and status is immense.
The term 'citizen' implies membership, whilst a 'subject' owes obedience to another. In the United Kingdom the transition from one to the other has been slow and arduous. It has taken generations of organic change and development which has seen the status of the average Briton improve from that of serf, a mere chattel of his lord, to a member of an (at least theoretically) free and equal society. The transition is incomplete but advanced, and there are powerful institutional and societal conventions which hinder the transition. One of these is the all-powerful position of the State. In the UK, other than in times of rebellion, power rests with the State, not the populace. Power devolves down from the Crown to the Crown in Parliament. The full constitutional ramifications of this are beyond the scope of this piece, but it is relevant. The direction of the flow of power directs the thinking of those who wield it, be they socialist or reactionary. They wield the power of the State for the State; they do not exercise it on behalf of the people.
The normal inclination of government is to accumulate power to itself. When that power emanates from the people, they are wont to notice and take steps to prevent a reduction in their rights, but if then flow is reversed, the people tend to notice less; they are used to the government dictating its terms and policies. This is especially true when obvious reform is occasional and half-hearted and the chance for the citizen to have a meaningful say (without organised and sometimes violent protest) is limited to one vote every four to five years.
Thus develops over time the father-knows-best society; In the beginning there is no choice: the subject owes obedience, whilst the citizen has come to depend on the wisdom of his master. The gauntlet develops into a kid glove, but the result is the same. You do as the government tells you; the government does not do as you instruct it. It does not represent, it rules.
And to rule, it needs to know who you are. Your identity as you perceive it, is not your identity as the government perceives it. You are a statistic, a resource, a drain on resources. You are a subject to be catalogued, codified, directed and ruled.
So. Where is this all leading, you ask? Well it's the latest piece of breath-taking arrogance by the UK Government; one which I venture to suggest is symptomatic of the feudal nature of government in this country.
For some years now there have been various attempts to introduce ID cards in the UK. John Major's government toyed with the idea in 1995 but abandoned the idea twelve months later in the face of fierce opposition. Now the Blair government is trying the same thing. Only this time there is a difference. Despite continued fierce opposition, they are likely to try to introduce ID cards anyway.
Originally the idea was to have an entitlement card, though the name fooled no-one. It was to be voluntary, and would prove entitlement to healthcare and other state services. Nearly twelve months ago, while the government was still "consulting" on its proposals, Privacy International warned the government over the likelihood of a growing public backlash over what was already transforming into plans to introduce compulsory ID cards in the UK.
By January this year, it appeared that the Government was getting cold feet: the BBC reported that increasing opposition to the introduction of ID Cards in the UK was making the Government think again.
Despite Home Secretary David Blunkett's personal support for the idea, Home Office Minister Lord Falconer speaking at a conference on the future of ID cards organised by tech industry body Intellect, told delegates that the scheme may never come to fruition.
It is now clear, however, that this was just the first stage in the Government's dissembling over the presentation of a decision already taken. The Home Office claimed to have received 2,000 responses largely positive. Privacy International alone claimed to have orchestrated a campaign of 7,000 responses, largely negative. Clearly both sides couldn't be right.
Privacy International quite understandably made a bit of a fuss and questions were asked in the House of Lords. The Government response was quite astounding, as this link to Hansard demonstrates: in effect the Government's position is simple; one petition is one response, one campaign is one response regardless of the number of individuals named in the petition or campaign. And by a stroke, public opposition is public support.
Nonetheless, even having committed this piece of statistical chicanery, there was enough doubt to ensure that the process was slowed while the Cabinet mulled over the implications.
By July it was clear that Blunkett's arguments were winning against the doubters in Cabinet: The Sunday Times reported that the Government was to press ahead with the introduction of compulsory ID Cards in the UK for everyone over the age of 16.
"The home secretary has rejected voluntary "entitlement cards" and instead will require all citizens to have identity cards. Each card will contain biometric data, such as an image of a person's iris or fingerprint, so police and other authorities can confirm the holder's identity."
The planned cost of this card, now openly an ID card was to be £40.
The Sunday Times article continued "The government will hold information about the population on a central computer database - a move that will further alarm civil liberties groups.
In a letter to fellow cabinet ministers dated June 25, Blunkett says: "I believe that the case for introducing a universal identity card in the UK is overwhelming. The consultation exercise showed strong public support for a card scheme and a preference for the term 'identity card' rather than 'entitlement card'."
Meanwhile, the BBC were still reporting responses from the Government barely a week earlier: "In response to a parliamentary question from MP Anne McIntosh, Home Office minister Beverley Hughes has confirmed that over 5,000 of the 7,000 responses to a public consultation on the issue were against the scheme."
Hope as they might, the Government found that the opposition to ID Cards was real and not going away. The next step therefore, was to look into the possibilities for introducing them by stealth, and where better to test the approach and technology than the passport?
The BBC reported on 27 August the "passport scheme" was hiding an ID trial:
"The six-month study, unveiled by Home Secretary David Blunkett, puts fingerprints, iris or facial recognition data onto a microchip in the passport.
The Home Office said the technology could be incorporated into ID cards, but insisted it had no specific plans to stage a pilot ID scheme."
The article also noted that the introduction of ID cards would require Parliamentary legislation. Introducing these additions to passports would not.
On my own blog (not LJ) I made the following observation: "Although it is not compulsory to own a passport - nobody is forced to leave the country for a holiday - in practice a substantial portion of the population does have one. The next argument, of course, if and when these changes are introduced by the Passport Office, will be that the introduction of ID cards will be cheaper than the critics suggest, and who cares about the invasion of privacy, because we already have the information on a substantial part of the population."
It seemed as recently as a week ago that Blunkett might have lost the argument for ID Cards - especially compulsory ID cards as this article in the Telegraph on 7 November suggested:
David Blunkett's hopes of being the Home Secretary who introduces compulsory identity cards were dashed yesterday when the Cabinet put off a decision until later in the decade.
Instead of pushing ahead with a compulsory scheme in the short term, the Government will introduce draft legislation in the Queen's speech this month as the first step towards a voluntary system.
However, for the first time, the admission that the long term aim was and is compulsion:
Ministers agreed a detailed statement making clear they remained committed to compulsion in the long term provided the technical problems, and worries about the cost, could be overcome.
Ministers intended to move by "incremental steps" to "build a base for a compulsory national ID card scheme".
But now, less than a fortnight later, the details are out. This article in the Times outlines the latest position. Since readers outside the UK have to pay to see the article, I have included edited highlights below:
MILLIONS of people will be issued with identity cards within three years under David Blunkett's plans for a national scheme announced yesterday. The first compelled to have a card - from 2006 - will be the country's 4.6 million foreign citizens.
A year later British citizens renewing or applying for a passport will be issued with a travel document that could be used as an identity card. They will have to undergo fingerprint and iris scans at post offices or register offices before being issued with a new passport or driving licence.
The passport will cost £77 and will include biometric features such as an iris or fingerprints, which could be checked against a database containing details of all citizens. The driving licence with biometrics will cost £73.
A person who has neither a driving licence nor a passport would be able to apply for a plain identity card costing £35 for ten years. People aged 16 would get the card free and there would be reduced rates of £10 for those on low incomes. Individuals would also be able to pay by instalments.
The Home Office estimates that by 2013 almost 80 per cent of the population would possess either a passport or driving licence containing biometric details, stored on a microchip. Parliament will then be asked whether to make having a card compulsory for all. Mr Blunkett, the Home Secretary, made clear yesterday that he is in favour of that, though people would not have to carry it at all times. He said: "The full benefits cannot be achieved without compulsion."
Passport cards might have to be renewed every five years, as that is when the chip would need replacing.
Under the proposals, Mr Blunkett will publish a draft Bill in January that will set out plans for a national identity register containing everyone's details. The Bill will outline what should be on the database - name, address, age and sex. It is not expected to include marital status or health records.
Passports that include biometrics on a chip will start to be issued from about 2006-07. The move for biometrics to be included in travel documents is being driven partly by international agreements to make passports more secure.
Under yesterday's proposals the police and other organisations would not have "routine" access to data stored on the National Identity Register, but the Home Office said that there were strong arguments for allowing such access to help in the fight against serious crime and terrorism.
The Telegraph covers the same story here in the article, Compulsory ID cards by back door. There are two paragraphs of particular interest:
He (David Blunkett) claimed there was widespread support among the public and state agencies - including MI5, which wanted a better system to combat terrorism. Yet a Home Office consultation exercise indicated that enthusiasm was muted.
The police said the absence of any requirement to produce the card on demand would make it of limited use in fighting crime or illegal working and immigration.
And since the police have made an important point and rather obvious about the worth of ID Cards to them where they are effectively voluntary and do not need to be produced:
Mr Blunkett said this process could take five years. That means Britain would have a fully compulsory national identity system in place early in the next decade.
And so there we have it. Power wielded by the state for the state. In less than a year the position has changed from a consultation on the possible introduction of a voluntary entitlement card to the clear intention to impose a compulsory identity card. And this despite clear evidence that it is supported only by the Government and not the majority of the populace.
And it's not as if an ID Card will even do the job we are told it's for: it will not prevent illegal immigration, it will not cut down on fraud, it will not prevent terrorism. What it will do is potentially criminalize millions of Britons who will no longer own their own identities. The person will become the physical representation of the statistic, the information on the database. People will no longer look at or properly perceive you; you will be subordinated to the demands of the card.
I hand the argument to Melanie Phillips:
As the police themselves say, they have no difficulty identifying terror suspects. Indeed, some have turned out to be British citizens who were living here perfectly legally. The difficulty lies either in finding evidence to put before a court, or in summoning the political will to arrest such people or deport them.
The second claim is that identity cards would halt the flow of illegal immigration. Again, there is no doubting the urgency of the problem. The numbers coming in are wholly unsustainable. Britain has simply lost control of its borders, and nothing the government has done has resolved the crisis.
It has refused to pass its own asylum act and thus reclaim asylum law from the European and English judges who have made it unworkable. It has refused to insist on an opt-out from the European Convention on Human Rights, and refused to acknowledge that its own Human Rights Act has made immigration policy impossible.
Instead, it is now pinning its hopes on identity cards to flush out illegal immigrants. This would be a serious imposition on the rest of the population, who would find themselves having to prove their entitlement to public services. It would subject them at best to inconvenience and at worst to criminalisation if they forgot their cards, or failed to notify the authorities of a change of address or other personal circumstances.
Stephen Robinson raised further points in the Telegraph on 24 July:
The "libertarian" or "liberal" argument against ID cards is that they fundamentally shift the balance between the rights of the individual and the state. They reverse the common law presumption of innocence, by imposing a requirement on a person to prove who he is, even when acting perfectly legally.
But there are serious practical objections, too. Industry estimates put the cost of the scheme at more than £5 billion, dwarfing the Home Office estimate of £1.5 billion. An ID card will lead inevitably to "function creep", so that though in theory it will not be compulsory to carry one at all times, without the card it will become impossible to draw money from a bank, perhaps even board a train.
Then there is the point about forgery and identity fraud. These cards are supposed to last 10 years or so: does anyone doubt that a card based on technology developed in 1993 would by now have been mastered by gangs of forgers? And if you are wondering why the price of a new passport has just risen to £42, from £18 when Labour took office, it is because you are being softened up for the introduction of the Blunkett card.
Before I close this piece, I should like to make one further link, and pick up the twin themes of privacy and function creep. Should you think that I and others like me are being unnecessarily alarmist, I should like to remind you that these cards will have biometric data on them.
Digest then, the following intelligence: a report from the Times dated 18 July 2003.
THE national DNA database could be privatised under government plans announced yesterday to sell off laboratories providing forensic evidence.
David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, intends to inject competition into the forensic science industry by a privatisation before the next election. He left open the prospect that the national DNA database, now holding 2 million genetic samples, could be run by the private sector. The Home Office said that a decision would be taken later.
So, Citizen or Subject? An equal member of society or chattel of the State? Are you what you think you are. Are you who you think you are?
...and relax.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-13 05:08 am (UTC)Formerly Director of Liberty, Mactaggart was a prominent opponent of Michael Howard's plans for id cards in the 90. She is now minister for race equality, community policy and civil renewal in the Blair government. Personally, I don't think her arguments hold much water. It seems that her own former employers aren't that impressed with the cabinet debate either.
I would make the note that it's not (yet) "the government" that's pushing the issue. It's Blunkett and a coterie within the cabinet. The reportage leads me to think that there are still some heavyweight voices in cabinet opposed. Wonder if any of them are likely to "do a Cook" if Blunkett has his way.