Talk:British national identity card

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Privacy Concerns

I have added information to this section for several reasons. It seems to me that in a society where things are fairly automatic, for example, someone asking for your phone number or address that people will go along with the situation they are in. There is a need to spell out to people the consequences of certain laws, in order to get them to think about what they mean, so that they won't just automatically accept things.

In particular, I have added the fact that the government currently does not have the right to this information. There is no law which says that you must give them your biometric information. I have used finger prints as an example of involuntary biometric data. As well, I have mentioned that in the future, if governments gain this data, they will be able to ask for other types of data in the future.

I have mentioned the fact as of today, if the government demanded this information from you, you would not have to give it.

I did not add that you could legally resist, and sue them.

A fundamental defintion of a right, is something which cannot be taken away from you. If you are a law abiding citizen, the government cannot take your finger prints. Rights can, however, be given up by people. A person can voluntarily give this information. Some people believe that rights should be approached in an adversial way. In other words, these are my rights, and I will fight for every one which they try to take away.

In terms of neutrality in this article, I feel that it can be best achieved by rights advocates stating their views openly, and government advocates doing the same. Since privacy rights in this case are an individual concern, I feel that the pronoun "you" is needed to convey the fact that you are an individual, while the government is not. Depersonalising the language would have the effect of taking away the argument for privacy, because this is a thing which effects people, and not objects.

A privacy concern is just that, something which people are concerned about, which indicates an emotional reponse and logical response.

HowFreeHmm 18:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I think several parts of the page show significant bias. This part struck me the most (found under 'Privacy Concerns'):

"(for which ethnic minorites will need to be frequently asked to produce their ID)".

I think that fragment is quite provocative. I really think this should be either deleted or dramatically changed. Anyone agree?

Moved a bit of text here to help with a NPOV problem. The original text (listed under "Voluntary vs Compulsory") is as follows:

In reality the "voluntary" period will be nothing of the sort. It will be mandatory during this period to have an ID Card in order to renew a driving licence or passport — thus an estimated 80% of the UK population will be forced to have an ID Card during the "voluntary" scheme.
The Commons' Home Affairs Committee said:
To describe the first phase of the Government's proposals as 'voluntary' stretches the English language to breaking point.

This is really pushing NPOV. BenSamples 06:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


How about...

It will be mandatory during this period to register for the National Identity Database in order to renew a driving licence or passport — thus an estimated 80% of the UK population are expected to have registered during the life of the voluntary scheme.

Bonalaw 09:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2nd para must be wrong... compulsory in 2003 --bodnotbod 20:33, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

This appears to have been fixed — OwenBlacker 12:33, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

This article could definitely so with some less anti-ID card See also links. My comment about checking the NPOV of my edits, by the way, is because I must declare an interest, as a campaigner against the current ID card proposals of the British government. — OwenBlacker 13:00, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

Charles Clarke is set to announce tomorrow (Mon 20 December) that he will be fast-tracking the scheme to make ID cards compulsory within four years(!). Will wait to see what he actually says in the Commons, then amend accordingly. --TylerD 23:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is there a source for individuals having no right to access or correct their NIR entries btw? Thanks. --TylerD 23:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe this is wrong; however appears that the audit trail (of all uses of the card) will not be accessible. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,1175638,00.html Also: I think it is worth mentioning the justification of ID cards on the basis that the biometric identification used will be required by other countries (in passports). I read this on www.theregister.co.uk (warning: bias).

I have edited this section, removing the use of "you" to "citizens" and "persons", hopefully making the text less emotive and more NPOV. 12:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC

[edit] Royal Family

Will the Queen and other members of the Royal family have to get them too? How will their names be listed? HRH Prince William of Wales or William Arthur Philip Louis Mountbatten-Windsor?

"In reality the "voluntary" period will be nothing of the sort. It will be mandatory during this period to have an ID Card in order to renew a driving licence or passport — thus an estimated 80% of the UK population will be forced to have an ID Card during the "voluntary" scheme. "

The above is clearly wrong. The card is NOT compulsory. One might as well say a driving or TV licence is compulsory. It is not, as it is not compulsory to drive or own a TV.

Will remove if no objection.

Exile 19:19, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


The ID Card scheme will be backed up by a centralised computer database, the National Identity Register (NIR). Many people argue that the NIR is more of a threat to privacy and civil liberties than the ID Cards themselves.

(well obviously. a card is no threat to privacy or civil liberties in itself)

The NIR will contain a huge amount of information on every British citizen, including current and all previous addresses. Failure to inform the Government of a change of address or other personal details will result in a fine of £1000, while the fine for refusing to register or failing to submit to scanning will be £2500. There will be an audit trail that records when and where the Card was used.

Perhaps most controversially of all individuals will have no right to see or correct information held about them on the NIR.

(some contradiction there. if you are not allowed to find out any data held on you, and have no right to correct it, how can you avoid the £1000 fine for having a wrong address? can someone check up on this?)

- actually from the comments at the top it probably is wrong - if we can get confirmation then the relevant para should be amended to something like

"not all the data will be available to the individual to see or correct" or "the audit trail...."

Exile 19:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

General comment - the article is extremely biased as it stands.

Exile 19:31, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On the right to see your information - the statement is incorrect. Every individual has subject data access rights under the Data Protection Act. Thus, you will have a right to see your data and you will be able to correct it. I quickly looked at Hansard and Baroness Scotland confirmed this in the Lords. I will correct this too.

I have also made additions to the section on the National Identity Number. The Data Protection Act already contains protections regarding unique personal identifiers that would stop the kind of activity suggested in that piece. I think the use of the word "unlimited" is unfair in that context but I have left it there for others to decide. In addition, if you read the legislation, you will see that it specifically excludes the link of numbers that lead to sensitivie personal data under the DPA, which includes medicial, criminal records and information on politics, race or faiths.


I don't know for sure how the royal family's names will be recorded on ID cards, but one possible indication is that both William's St Andrew's University matriculation card and Harry's commission in the Blues and Royals carry the surname Wales. 82.138.204.165 11:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My thoughts

I wrote this just over a week ago: Identifying the Problem -- Smjg 14:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ID Theft Protection Already in Place.

I am already using my biometric and databases already in place to protect myself from ID theft.

I have no need to divulge 50 odd pieces of information, or spend in the region of £90 to achieve this.

My personal information and documents which could be used for ID theft have been rendered worthless.

MoneyBox (BBC Radio 4 ran with this)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/moneybox/3574779.stm

This system is driven by me, controlled by me and addresses all of the Information Commissioners concerns; in addition it costs the tax payer nothing yet could save a fortune.

With the above in situ, do I need and ID card and if so for what????

[edit] British citizens abroad

I've been trying, both for personal interest and to add to the article, to find our how the proposed legislation applies to (the millions of) British citizens who live abroad. Some sources speak of the NIR as containing data on "all British citizens" but the legislation itself seems to say that only "UK residents" will be included. There has been much discussion of the impact on foreigners resident in the UK, but little or none about Brits resident abroad. Will we be required to obtain an ID card when renewing our passports? If so, will we have to visit an embassy in person, or even return to the UK, to supply the required biometric data? Does anybody know anything about this? Cambyses 13:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


Sorry about may numerous comments - your article has at least got me researching on a wet boring evening. The legislation states that its only for UK residents so it would not seem to affect people resident abroad. This was confirmed in Hansard as well - it is stated that identity cards will not be issued abroad.

The Official Identity Card sites http://www.identitycards.gov.uk/ states: "Anyone over the age of 16 and legally resident in the United Kingdom for at least three months will be eligible to have an ID card.". And I have also read elsewhere that British citizens resident outside the UK will not be issued with identity cards.
UK citizens living outside the UK will thus continue to have to carry a large and inconvenient passport, unlike all other EU citizens who can cross borders with an Identity Card. (I am a British citizen who lives 3Km from the EU external border).
TiffaF 14:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What about British citizens living in crown dependencies, colonies or other territories with some kind of dependence on Britain? (Stefan2 12:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

I have been issued with a Dutch residence permit which is also an ID card would that be valid in Britain in the future? ScotDutchy 12:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other biometric information?

At what point are we going to find out what this will consist of? Obvious stuff like height and weight would seem too subject to change to be useful in the long term.... -- Smjg 16:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that there are a number of competing biometric standards to choose between. The new biomatric passports use facial recognition, biometric visas (to be introduced by EU countries shortly will use fingerprints and Iris scanning is being introduced at UK Ports of Entry. Basically they all have problems and benefits and until there is a common agreement on which one to use I suspect that the question is being deliberatley left unanswered --Spartaz 14:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cost

"National opinion polls suggest that the public are generally supportive of the scheme in principle if the Cards are free". I'm assuming that "free" means that there is no charge for the card at point of issue. Whatever the overall cost, the tax-paying uk population will pay for the cards, whether they cost £30 or £500 each! I think the poll respondents were a little confused on the point of who pays for what...

They're £300, or so I've heard. Interesting waste of tax-payers money, no? - Jigsy 20:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias on this article

revert. User:86.129.77.56 has been systematically re-writing this article with a heavily pro-NIR POV.)

I have read this article with interest and tried to make some changes to represent a pro-ID card point of view, I agree. I have been a victim of identity fraud and a close friend was injured in the London bombs. We support ID cards

I must say that your article is terribly, terribly bias against the proposal so the comment on my additions above seems laughable. I am a supporter of ID card and I've followed the debate and research involved and added the pro arguments.

You lot seem to be anti-ID cards. That's fine. However, any attempt to represent the views of those who are in favour of the scheme is systematically deleted. Any figures provided by the Government are not provided and there are several errors in your article about the proposal and legislation passing through parliament. If it is an opinion piece, ok - but then let both opinions be heard.

Firstly, plenty of victims of identity fraud, those who have had friends injured in the London bombings or other acts of terrorism, or even those who have been victims themselves, oppose ID cards - not to mention that identity fraud in most cases has nothing to do with ID cards, as they would not prevent it, and that ID cards wouldn't have prevented the London bombings, so this is all irrelevant.
[Surely that is an opinion. The Fraud Prevention Service, CIFAS, support identity cards on their website - www.cifas.co.uk. Also, the police have said that it would still disrupt terrorist activity, which is a reasonable suggestion- although I would agree with your points that they state that it will not stop the london bombings - that has been clearly expressed]
I'm thinking of cases like credit and debit card fraud - my understanding is this is still counted under "Identify theft", though it's not clear how ID cards would help at all. Mdwh 00:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
It's true that the article was lacking claims from supporters, however I thought that your changes were very POV. In particular, (1) Writing "Opponents claim" everywhere, but not doing the same for the support POV, implying that was factual, (2) Use of "Biometric experts" only for the support POV, (3) Removal of information on polls which showed opposition to the scheme. I've tried to edit/improve rather than reverting. Mdwh 18:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Good work. --Bonalaw 18:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Also I left this bit: "Opponents say that a minister will able to impose compulsion using delegated legislation. However the secondary legislation proposed would mean that both the House of Commons and House of Lords would need to vote on the issue."
If the second case is the factually accurate one, is there some evidence here? Or does anyone have evidence to support the views of the opponents? Mdwh 18:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting debate here now, nice it is getting a bit more balanced....With changes in the House of Commons on Monday, a new Act of Parliament is needed to introduce a completely compulsory identity card. For the linking of passports with the identity card, there still needs to be a vote in both Houses of Parliament. It's called the affirmative procedure - I know, I used to work having to write some of those orders! I've had a look at the legislation on the web - you'll see that its stated under Clause 4 of the proposed Bill. (Yes, I am a bit sad). I have made an edit that reflect that fact (i.e. Act of Parliament and vote for link to a "designated document", as its called"

This article is clearly biased but I do not have enough knowledge of the subject to perform a proper cleanup, so I have added a POV-check template. Here is one of the more blatant examples: "If the British Government were realistic about making an impact on crime, fraud, terrorism and illegal immigration it would scrap the preposterous ID card scheme and spend the vast amount of money on something useful. The introduction of ID cards will change British life. The relationship between the individual and the state will be forever altered. It will revolutionise the capacity of the state to monitor the movements and behaviour of each and every one of us. It erodes privacy, and in extremis it will curtail freedom." This conjecture and opinion has been added as fact, with a citation to an essay. It probably also qualifies as plagiarism, on that account. I will make some edits but I believe the POV-check template needs to stay up until this can be looked at by some more experienced editors with knowledge of the subject. Tartan Nutter 14:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have made my edits but am not at all satisfied with the quality of this article. It needs attention. I would like to add that the bias I have been making an effort to remove actually supports my point of view, the entire page is clearly against identity cards. Heavily biased pages we happen to agree with are still bad pages, after all. Tartan Nutter 15:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have looked it over again. The main thing this article needs is some good citations in support of ID cards. Most of the supporting opinions in this article are against. Tartan Nutter 12:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

So this article has now been tagged POV for over 18 months - thoughts on the current status? The worse examples given above have been removed. Mdwh (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] stuff from Identity card

The following section I removed from Identity document because it really belongs here, replaced it with a link to this main article. However it is pretty much the same as the stuff here and is also POV. Perhaps someone could extract some useful info to put into this article. 219.77.98.22 10:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

-- Nevertheless, several Home Secretaries have since proposed reintroducing identity cards, under various pretexts and, in 2003, the then Home Secretary David Blunkett stated that the British government intends to introduce a national identity card scheme based on biometric technology, together with a database to track the resident population, to be made compulsory by 2013. To that end, the Identity Cards Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on November 29, 2004; the bill failed as it was not passed before the UK general election, 2005, but was reintroduced soon after and (as of January 2006) continues to progress, though with increasingly smaller majorities in favor.

The Home Office argues the card will frustrate international terrorists, claiming that 35% of whom travel under a false identity. The government also claims the cards will help to prevent illegal immigration, "health tourism", benefit fraud and identity theft, and that biometric passports will make it easier for British citizens to travel to the U.S.. However in August 2005 the minister concerned conceded that the Government had "oversold the advantages of identity cards".

Critics oppose the bill on the grounds of: civil liberties, spiralling costs; issues with the database and audit trail (unprecedended amounts of personal data linked by one number and tracked on every use of the card, an unwarranted invasion of privacy; potential for discrimination (stop and search already targets and marginalises ethnic minorities) despite government assurances to the contrary; inability to stop terrorism, illegal immigration, or identity theft (which could be aided by linking all the information to one number); the risks involved (eg. inconvenience of errors and mismatches, government history of IT failure). The Government's own Information Commissioner has said that the nation risks sleepwalking into a 'surveillance society' due to this and other planned .

11,369 people have signed a pledge stating that they will refuse to register for an identity card and donate 10 pounds to a legal defense fund if the Bill becomes law.

The TGWU has said that identity cards have the potential to become Labour's Poll Tax [1]. However, on Monday 13th February 2006 Parliament voted to allow people to buy and carry ID cards, although the scheme will not be compulsory. Anyone who buys a passport will have to buy an ID card at the same time, leading to 'creeping compulsion' given the high level of passport ownership by the UK population. The Government has said that the cost of an ID card on its own is £30 and with a passport the cost will be £93 although Independent Analysts have said that this price is likely to be more!

[edit] Article name

Speaking of which, shouldn't this article really be at British national identity register? The card is only a spin-off of the register. --Bonalaw 07:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In theory you're right, however few people realise this (it's rarely mentioned in the media), and the title of the legislation is the "Identity Cards Act" so it's probably better off where it is. 80.42.36.220 04:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
If this is the only argument against, I think it should be changed. Wikipedia's job is to inform and educate in a NPOV way. The relatively unbiased Lords Committee for the Constitution said that the legislation should be called the "National Identity Register and Identity Cards Bill" [2]. "National Identity Register and ID Cards" would be my recommendation. There is no need for "British" in the title, surely. Mindjuicer 07:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from main article

The following comment was added directly to the article. Regardless of the truth of the matter it is clear the comment belongs here:

The paragraph above is a Lie. For exaple, South Africa is also a common Law country.They also have ID cards.Check stuff before you enter it in here.

195.83.126.10 10:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flaws with this article - proposals for improvement

Its becoming ridiculously long for something that is still being discussed and its needs significant cuts - which will also allow for some editing back towards NPOV. The suggestion that the article should be identity register also has a lot of merit and I think we should use that article to link to smaller sub articles on some of the less relevant parts (e.g the details fo what information will be held on the register). I won't do anything for a couple of days so that we can discuss taking this forward. --Spartaz 12:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems an appropriate length for a complex and contentious topic, and is well structured to enable navigation. However it will continue to need regular pruning and NPOV correction as it has in the past (and as I've been doing today). As for the detail of information held on the register, this could be changed back to an infobox as it was back in March. 80.42.36.220 03:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, no-one knows what information will be held on the NIR as the Act clearly specifies:
"3.(6) The Secretary of State may by order modify the information for the time being set out in Schedule 1."
Secondly, I'd like to know why the following sections were removed without comment:
"This means both that little is known about the how the scheme would work and that its scope can expand beyond the Government's stated function without further votes in Parliament.
Opponents claim that political opposition could be highlighted through searching the data accumulated and blackmailed through denial of public services & licenses to travel. Supporters claim that the scheme has an important role in identity management, preventing terrorism & fraud and that rights are protected by the Human Rights Act."
Lastly, obvious ways to reduce the length include the legislative progress section, the polls concern and the totalitarian drift concern.
Mindjuicer 00:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs to be written in encyclopedia-style

I've noticed that the privacy concern section is written with questions, like:

"It has yet to be seen what will happen if an individual refuses to give up this information. For example, access to government services lost? Could people be arrested, as in previous cases of persons who had not broken the law, but who were not carrying identification with them?

There is also a concern about a creeping loss of privacy. Once the government has finger prints and eye scan, what will be the next thing the government asks for? Could the government ask for your DNA, or dental records? (This is banned under the current planned legislation because it requires an external biometric, whereas DNA is an internal biometric)."

Agree. There is a point to be made here about function creep, but the rest of this info is outdated/inaccurate.
The whole Concerns section is probably superfluous since most of the article talks about concerns. Mindjuicer 03:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I have started to trim this down and remove some of unessecary information. This will take some time as there is a lot to be looked at. --Spartaz 06:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Sections 1 to 3 have been trimmed. Section 4 next Spartaz 21:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think sections of the concerns should go but a lot of the information can be rationalised. I have made a slow start Spartaz 23:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work so far, I think. I have added "Various degrees of concern about the scheme have been expressed by human rights experts, security experts and IT experts amongst others" to the opening section. I think concerns need to be highlighted since the main reactions of most experts seems to be concern of one kind or other. Mindjuicer 23:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It's definitely much improved - good work! --h2g2bob 16:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes I agree that we need to keep some concerns. It just needs not to take over the entire article. :) Gotta find time to work on this more. Spartaz 19:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
There are 2 ways to deal with the many concerns about this scheme. One is bunching all concerns into one section and referencing those from the rest of the article. The other is to mention some concerns throughout the article.
In regard to the polls history, Mdwh who reversed my trimming [3] agreed in principle to the large reduction in the size of the section. His 2 objections were that the earliest, 80% pro- poll was misleading and that the data was too useful to be completely discarded. See his talk page. Mindjuicer 06:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

<deindent> I have done some more work on this splitting off the poll data to a separate page and consolidating the reaction of crime and terrorism professionals into one section. I have selectively removed some quotes that give particular pov added emphasis and thereby affective the overal NPOV of the sections. I also split off the data to be contained to a separate page because the info box was distorting the formating. Finally, I did some redrafting to improve readability and remove pov statements. I almost feel ready to tackle to concerns section. Spartaz 11:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Think most if not all of your NPOV edits make the article less informative and less accurate. Your other edits are good. Suggest agreeing desirable changes to Concerns section before you make a start there. Mindjuicer 17:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not very territorial about this. Feel free to revert any changes you disagree with - I'm very unlikely to argue about it. Probably not a bad idea to think carefully about how to deal with the concerns. I just think we need it to be much more concise as otherwise the article becomes anti-ID cards. Hard thing for me to do well as I'm actually anti myself. Any ideas? I really appreciate the extra eyes on what I'm doing because I do appreciate that this is a very contentious article as it stands. Spartaz 18:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
NPOV doesn't mean a balance halfway between pro & anti. It means neutral language and only justifiable assertions. The Wiki article says "representing fairly and without bias all significant views".
"Concerns" looks hard to trim. They all look like valid concerns apart from "Poor Use of Funds". There are even some concerns missing eg undercover reporting vs illegal working. Totalitarian drift and Government benevolence can be merged and compressed with a pointer to a Govt authoritarianism page. There are some duplications, excessive detail and poor language.
Again are we going to have concerns mentioned in respect to other details throughout the article, plus an extra "Other Concerns" bit?
Re: reverting, I'll have a look at what you were trying to do and see if I can come up with something better than what's been there so far. Give me a few days on that. Mindjuicer 20:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (Arbitary new section re the reworking of the article

Hi Mindjuicer. Thanks for reviewing (& improving) my changes. I just wanted to comment on:

Various degrees of concern about the scheme have been expressed by human rights experts, security experts and IT experts

I'm a little concerned these are weasel words. How about

Concerns raised by human rights campaigners and IT experts have centered on possible erosion of personal liberties and doubts about the costs and practicality of the scheme. ????

Thanks. I also removed the totalitarian drift section in toto as it was a pov rant that basically addressed other issues. Perhaps mention in other bits as they are reworded. --Spartaz 21:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"Concerns" is understating it. I can introduce you to several human rights experts who are horrified by the scheme, point you to 2 security experts who think this is a privacy & identity theft disaster waiting to happen and another 5 IT project management experts who say the scheme will almost certainly fail from an industry perspective. Most of their arguments would convince a reasonable person that the project should never even be started. Thus "Significant concerns" is accurate but possibly POV. Any other suggestions?
Does DK CPR mean the Chinese police database? Do you have a source for the info contained on it? As far as I'm aware, it's quite limited compared even to the 50 categories of information, biometrics & audit trail of the NIR. I understand your objection to the word "intrusive" - by it I mean "the extent of what people usually consider to be private details". On this definition, since the NIR can be easily linked to tax returns, the extended NIR is by definition more extensive than just the Finn's tax returns. 82.32.60.30 04:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
DK CPR is the Danish CPR record system that holds extensive infrmation on each person in Denmark. Finnish Tax Returns are publicly online and everyone checks their neighbours to see what they earn. What your contacts/friends tell you is not relevent. We do not go for original research here - we stick to what is verifiably published by reliable sources. Concerns about HR, Security and project failure will be discussed in the article. The current concerns section is an utter mess and needs completely reviewing. Can you point to some sources that would help us do this and document the concerns you raised? That would be very helpful. Also, we strive to write in neutral language and avoid emotive or alarming phrases. Spartaz 05:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, you're doing a good job. Thanks for raising the DK CPR - not entirely sure why church membership is on there!? Looks like their privacy is better protected by their constitution. [4]
A few of the sources are mentioned throughout the article eg Info Commissioner, JCHR, Benefits Overview document (discussed [5]). Quite a few are missing eg European Human Rights Commissioner, Ross Anderson, Jerry Fishenden, the LSE, all of whom made the national press.
If concerns are mentioned in the article and not in the Concerns section, should it not then be called "Other Concerns"? Mindjuicer 19:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, Hi Mindjuicer, I hadn't realised it was you. Sorry for the lecture, I thought we had acquired an anon editor who might not have been aware of the relevent policies. I'm of the opinion that the three main concerns are Costs, HRA (Ethnic profiling and big brother) + security/IT risks and I'm inclined to do a section on each. The other concerns can be bulletted at the end to shorten the article and not give less important issues undue weight. This would then give us concerns about .... plus other concerns at the end. I think if we do that, we are getting pretty close to the finished product. Obviously we then need to go through referencing and balancing the thing but that can wait until we have fixed the content. What do you think? --Spartaz 21:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of a British Identity Card in place of a passport for travel in the EU

Quote from [6]:

"Could the card be used for travel in Europe?
Most citizens of the European Economic Area (EEA) countries are able to travel within Europe using their national ID cards rather than a full passport. An ID card with British nationality displayed on the card could be used for travel in Europe."

This only says that if the card displays the nationality it would be valid for travel (conditional tense), which is merely a statement of EU law. It does not say the card will be proof of British nationality. Has anybody official said the card will be a proof of British Nationality?

Also, nowhere on the web site does it say what will be on the card, for example will your address be on it? If it cannot even be used as proof of address, it is useless. Am I being paranoid here? TiffaF 15:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I think early drafts showed nationality so those issued to British citizens would be valid to use within in the EU/EEA. Spartaz Humbug! 17:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It is a way to cover their back as they want to force any British resident who is not a British National to have ID cards from 2008. Obviously they would not want these to be used for travel. So you could easily understand that it would somehow differentiate between both groups. Asteriontalk 09:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
That's normal. Italy for example issues ID cards to non-citizens. They simply can't be used outside Schengen. Other countries issue different cards to residents than citizens. Ultimately its simply a question of matching the nationality on th4 card with the country that issued it. If its different its not valid for travel. Spartaz Humbug! 10:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] profiling

is there any way to add some comments about the power of the database to be used for profilinf. The extensive information on the database (perhaps combined with other personal data) could be used in the same manner, for the same purpose, as a Tesco store card - to show who, how and where to target electoral resources and what promises to make in order to win an election.

If the information is not held securely, then there is a strong risk that the government would use the power of this data for electoral purposes, manipulating people, making promises, ignoring some, victimising others.

This is not unrealistic given the current regimes attitude to using national resources for party political purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.157.32.16 (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can find references to support it (of other people making such accusations or government/political parties proposing it, not original research), feel free to add it. Please take care not to make unsupported statements (particularly contentious or deliberately subjective ones) and bear in mind that this is an encyclopaedia, not a forum. Cheers, CaNNoNFoDDa 17:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
no, this is an encyclopedia's forum. the actual page is the encyclopedia. 195.157.32.91 09:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)