Tory group report attacks ID scheme as a con trick

[R.A. Hettinga]

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/03/peter_lilley_id_report/print.html>

The Register


 Biting the hand that feeds IT

The Register ; Internet and Law ; Digital Rights/Digital Wrongs ;

 Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/03/peter_lilley_id_report/

Tory group report attacks ID scheme as a con trick
By John Lettice (john.lettice at theregister.co.uk)
Published Thursday 3rd February 2005 17:47 GMT

The Bow Group Tory think tank has published a critique of the ID scheme by
former Minister Peter Lilley MP. Lilley, who has been active in opposition
to the scheme in Parliament, echoes Privacy International's suggestion that
the ID card could become the Labour Party's poll tax, and the report
provides a succinct primer to the flaws of the scheme. But it's Lilley's
parliamentary and ministerial experience that makes the report particularly
interesting.

He notes that in opposition (in 1995) one Tony Blair said: "Instead of
wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on compulsory ID cards as the Tory
Right demand, let that money provide thousands more police officers on the
beat in our local communities", which is of course just slightly different
from the current line. Lilley contends that "his change of heart is
entirely cynical. It reflects government by focus group. The focus groups
showed that the public felt the government had failed on crime and
immigration; the Conservatives were trusted to do better; and Michael
Howard was a successful Home Secretary who reduced both crime and
immigration. Focus groups also showed that the public believed ID cards
would help tackle both problems. So Blair is pressing ahead with ID cards
to create the impression that he is being tough on crime and immigration.
Having adopted the idea cynically, the government embraced them
wholeheartedly because ID cards fit squarely within the New Labour mould.
They have the smack of modernity - witness Ministers' talk of biometrics,
smart cards and new technology; they are nakedly populist; they make
Britain more like our European neighbours, many of whom have identity card
schemes of one sort or another; and they reflect New Labour's desire to
nanny and control us."

Which is an argument, certainly. Lilley the politician also notes a telling
signpost in the ID Bill's Regulatory Impact Assessment, which says: "The
government wants to encourage lawful migration into the country... In
sustaining and perhaps increasing current levels of lawful migration, it is
important to retain the confidence of the resident population". The
assessment says ID cards will help achieve this by convincing people "that
immigration controls will not be abused".

"In other words," says Lilley, "if the government mounts a high profile
campaign against 'abuse of immigration controls' the public will not
realise that it is actually 'encouraging' and 'increasing' the present
unprecedented level of immigration."

Perception management of this sort chimes with David Blunkett's explanation
of the need to deal with perception of threat, as opposed to reality, here
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/21/blunkett_internet_ban/) (where
you'll also see the first sighting of ASBOs for terror suspects, which are
now likely to be deployed as Clarke control orders for Belmarsh prisoners),
and with his explanation of pre-emptive measures
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/16/blunkett_be_afraid/) as a response
to fear. And also, of course, with the news that the Home Office is
actively trying to measure fear levels.
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/11/lander_harm_model/) So there's
ample support for Lilley's pitch that the ID scheme is just a hugely
expensive exercise in mass perception management, whether or not you agree
with him that immigration levels should be reduced.

Lilley makes several other useful points, notably that asylum seekers have
had biometric ID cards anyway since 2002, and that detected illegal
immigrants would simply have to claim asylum in order to get one. The
Government's lack of success in actually removing many illegal immigrants
from the country, says Lilley, means that in these circumstances most of
them can stay indefinitely. Coincidentally, in a parliamentary answer a few
days ago Immigration Minister Des Browne explained the Government's failure
to achieve its 30,000 removals target (10,780 were achieved in 2002) thus:
"The 30,000 removals target was set to drive up performance and to achieve
a real step change in the number of failed asylum seekers being removed. We
have since accepted that it was not achievable." Which does sound a bit
like an admission that it was perception management and was never expected
to be achieved in the first place.

The Bow Group site
(http://www.bowgroup.org/cgi-bin/page.pl?page=about/index.html) doesn't yet
have a copy of the full report, but it will no doubt be posted there in the
near future.

ID cards extra: The Portuguese Government is to introduce an electronic ID
card in order to tackle forgery of its existing cards. Fakes Portuguese
cards, it has emerged, have been widely used by Brazilian illegal
immigrants in order to work in the UK. There is as yet no introduction
date, so at around $75 the current fakes remain an excellent deal for the
wannabe European citizen. France meanwhile has launched a public debate on
its proposed electronic ID card, INES (identiti nationale ilectronique
sicurisie). The French card is also being pitched as a secure successor to
the current card, but France is majoring on its use as a means of enabling
secure electronic ID from the citizen's point of view (i.e. it helps you,
as opposed to your needing to have it in order to get stuff from the
Government). There's a very readable (if you read French) consultation
document here,
(http://www.foruminternet.org/telechargement/forum/pres-prog-ines-20050201.pdf)
and a live citizen's discussion forum with a credible level of activity
(how different from the sites of our own dear Home Office) here.
(http://www.foruminternet.org/forums/list.php?f=16) .


-- 
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah at ibuc.com>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'