Let us now consider the proponents of the introduction of the ID card and find out about the arguments put forward by the latter. The first simplistic argument which came forward was that since the citizens of eleven countries out of the fifteen nations of the European Union use ID cards as part of everyday life, why not the UK, since people already carry a wallet or purse full of cards. One of the main proponent here in the UK is the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, who spoke of a card “which would allow people to prove their identity more easily and provide a simple way to access public services.” He also added that such a scheme could “help to combat illegal working and it could also reduce fraud against individuals, public services and the private sector.” But it must be pointed out that the idea of introducing the card has been speeded up by the events of the September 11th attack in the United States of America and for proponents, the trade-off of less privacy for more security now seems reasonable. Other proponents can be found among security experts and high-tech experts who endorse the idea of some new form of identification system as a critical weapon to fight terrorism. These ID cards could just be pieces of plastic but would make use of technology such as “biometrics” which was mentioned earlier. Biometrics is the science and technology of measuring and analyzing biological data. It exploits the peculiarity of the human body such as eye retina and irises, fingerprints, facial patterns, voice patterns and hand measurements, especially for authentication purposes and biometric techniques are emerging as the replacements for traditional authentication methods. The cards would contain built in microchips which could hold large amount of information. For example, they could store a digitised version of the holder’s photograph and signature, just to name a few.
Proponents argue that recording biometric information could help combat crime such as fraud. It would prevent people from applying for more than one card, that is setting up multiple identities which could allow them to make multiple applications for services such as benefits. This system is already being used for asylum seekers in the UK, whose Application Registration Card contain fingerprint biometric information. This makes sure that the same person does not apply for asylum more than once. They also put forward the fact that it would simplify the access to state/government services. The latter is actually why cards have become ingrained across much of Europe. With regards to the issue of privacy about the gathering and sharing of biometric data, proponents argue that the data can be encrypted when it has been gathered and the original data can then de discarded to prevent identity theft. Addressing the question of security, advocates of the cars scheme argue that security can be achieved only with a smart card that can cross-check various storehouses of personal data to determine whether someone could be viewed with suspicion. That would mean, for example, that an airline ticket agent swiping a card would be warned, by law enforcement, intelligence and some private databases, about an individual who overstayed a tourist visa, is on a government watch list or who is wanted for crime.
The use of identity cards by citizens in certain European countries also allow these people to use their cards for cross border travel within the union, thus dispensing them of the use of bulky passports and since these cards would be linked to a centralized database system, it would dramatically speed up verification and make life more convenient for airlines, travellers and others. Some examples put forward by the proponents of this system is the system used in Finland. It has one of the most sophisticated systems which uses a smart card with a computer chip and serves as a travel card, or “mini-passport”, in at least fifteen European countries. According to the proponents, it would also be ideal for age verification; young adults would find it useful as a proof of age when buying cigarettes or alcohol whereas senior citizens would no longer need their pension books to prove their entitlement to certain concessions. It is also suggested that these smart cards could contain emergency information such as blood group, medical conditions needing special treatment, allergies and who to contact in case of an accident or when the need for an organ donor arises. This would be much faster than having to retrieve individually each piece of information.
It is now worth looking at what the opponents have got to say about the issue. To a group of them, what is new about the national ID card proposals is that they have become more technologically sophisticated but while technologies may have changed, the fundamental problems with the national ID card have not. The most serious problem with the national ID card is that it affects our civil liberties. It was recently argued by Tom Campbell, currently a law professor at Standford University, that,
“If you have an ID card, it is solely for the purpose of allowing the government to compel you to produce it. This would essentially give the government the power to demand that we show our papers. It is a very dangerous thing.”
The advocates put forward the question of who will be issuing these cards and if everyone is to have one, this would imply the collection and filing of personal information by a number of bureaucrats. Could these bureaucrats in turn be bribed or coerced into divulging information or producing fake ID cards. There is also the real possibility that hackers could invade centralized databases and distort or steal personal information. Simon Davies, director of Privacy International, a London-based advocacy group that has studied national IDs argued,
“Computers and networks in a centralized system would also become targets of hackers. In recent years, scores of private and government databases, containing financial, medical and other personal information, have been breached by hackers, some who publicized the data or used it in fraud schemes. It could also make it easier for a successful forger or hacker to maintain a false identity, since authorities would be so trusting in a new, high-tech system. A lost or stolen card under such a system will paralyse your card or your identity for days or weeks. At this point you have created a huge technological infrastructure of such massive proportions it trips over its own shoelaces.”
There are also software specialists who warn that technical hurdles to creating these systems are enormous. "There are a lot of flaws in software. It may create a false sense of security,” said David Banisar, a research fellow at Harvard Information Infrastructure Project. “There are all sorts of practical questions at the get-go”, he added.
Civil liberties activists, who are one of the main opponents, also claim that such a system would be costly (estimated to cost between £1.5 billion to £3 billion over thirteen years) and difficult to implement and would greatly ease the tracking of innocent citizens by creating a single identifier (either retina scan or fingerprint scan) on the chip. They also claim that the cards will be inevitably abused by officials who will use them as a mechanism for prejudice, discrimination or harassment. In Germany, where a national ID system is already in use, research has found out that police are more likely to stop people from ethnic minority groups to check their ID cards than the rest of the population. The activists also put forward as to whether the ID cards could be forged, and since to them, the technology gap between governmental agencies and organised crime has narrowed significantly, the answer is invariably yes. To them, ID cards would create a constant race by authorities to keep technology ahead of document forgers, which can prove extremely costly.
They also very much doubt the fact that it would act as a deterrent to crime or terrorism. To them, the introduction of ID cards would have in no way stopped the suicide bombers of September the 11th attack in the USA since it appeared that the terrorists had gone through passport checks and were legally present in the US. It is also claimed by the proponents that the Human Rights Act was passed to further protect civil liberties and regular calls for the introduction of the ID cards have been rejected by Government for the last fifty years since Ministers have recognized that their aim is to seek to protect freedom and democracy, and if they are to undermine these values, terrorists will claim it as a victory.
As mentioned earlier, the introduction of the national identity card has become a pressing issue in the aftermath of the September 11th in the US. There is growing concern for national security but the question to ask ourselves is whether this concern should be at the detriment of our privacy, since without privacy, other societal goals such as free speech, association, dignity and liberty will be compromised. As Roberto Unger wrote, “The most radical freedom is freedom to be, to be a unique person in the world as it is.”
To end with, “the success of any identity card scheme would depend on the confidence those using it and. There would have to be a balance between ensuring individual privacy but at the same time keeping loopholes firmly shut against fraudsters and criminals” as stated by Heather Green.
References:
Ayres, R. (1999), The Essence of Professional Issues in Computing
Prentice Hall
Agre, P. E & Rotenberg M, (1997), Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape
The MIT Press
Colin J. Bennett & Rebecca Grant (1999), Visions of Privacy: Policy Choices for a Digital Age
University of Toronto Press Incorporated
Garfinkel, S (2001), Database Nation: The Death of Privacy in the 21st Century
O’Reilly & Associates Inc
Spinello, R. (2000), Cyber Ethics: Morality and Law in Cyberspace
Jones and Bartlett Publishers
CD-ROM, BIS2061, Middlesex University
Ann Cavoukian, The Promise of Privacy-Enhancing Technologies: Applications in Health Information Networks
Adam Thierer, September 28,2001, National ID cards: New Technologies, Same Bad Idea
Robert O’Harrow Jr & Jonathan Krim, December 17,2001, National ID Gaining Support
Roberto Unger, New York Free Press 1984, Passion: An Essay on Personality
Heather Green, Business Week Online, October 8 2001, Databases and Security vs Privacy