ID cards 'could fall foul of human rights law'
Discussion
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=3VKMME0L5VYT1QFIQMFSM54AVCBQ0JVC?xml=/news/2005/02/03/nid03.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/02/03/ixhome.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=83264
ID cards 'could fall foul of human rights law'
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
(Filed: 03/02/2005)
Compulsory national identity cards raise "serious questions" about the protection of individual privacy under human rights law, MPs and peers said yesterday.
The Government's plans could also breach legislation forbidding discrimination by making some people subject to the ID regime while others are, for the time being, exempt. In a report, the joint parliamentary committee on human rights casts fresh doubt on Government claims that an ID card would help tackle crime, terrorism and illegal immigration.
It points out that the phased introduction of the cards and the accompanying National Identity Register will mean that a compulsory scheme, with penalties for non-compliance, will exist alongside a voluntary one.
From 2007, anyone renewing a passport will automatically be issued with an ID card and number, while those who do not need a new passport or do not possess one will not be subject to the regime.
The European Convention on Human Rights - which Labour incorporated into law in 1998 - does not bar ID cards but the committee suggests that ministers' plans to gather and record personal data go further than the law allows.
Under Article 8 of the convention, interference in private lives must be justified by a "pressing social need" and it has to be shown that the aims cannot be achieved by less intrusive means.
The committee says the details that can be held on the register, including previous addresses, travel abroad and records of the occasions on which such information has been provided to other agencies, would potentially provide "a detailed picture of private life".
The European Court of Human Rights has already ruled that holding information concerning an individual's distant past raises issues under Article 8. The Government maintains that the details to be held are unexceptionable and available elsewhere.
The ID Card Bill, now before Parliament, would allow for an "audit trail" of the occasions on which the register has been accessed, something the committee considered to be "potentially highly intrusive of privacy". The report also points to powers in the legislation that would allow biometric data already held on individuals, such as fingerprints, to be transferred without permission to the register.
The report goes on to challenge the basis of the scheme's introduction through passports. As the ID card is phased in there will be those required by law to have a card and to be registered, and those for whom it is not a requirement. The committee said this could be a breach of Article 14 of the convention which prohibits "unjustified discrimination on any grounds".
Overall, the committee is unconvinced that the Government has shown, as it must under human rights laws, that an ID card and a register would achieve aims and benefits that outweigh the intrusion into civil liberties.
Simon Hughes, of the Liberal Democrats, said: "This committee expresses deep dissatisfaction that the Government has not explained how its ID card plans are compatible with human rights."
ID cards 'could fall foul of human rights law'
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
(Filed: 03/02/2005)
Compulsory national identity cards raise "serious questions" about the protection of individual privacy under human rights law, MPs and peers said yesterday.
The Government's plans could also breach legislation forbidding discrimination by making some people subject to the ID regime while others are, for the time being, exempt. In a report, the joint parliamentary committee on human rights casts fresh doubt on Government claims that an ID card would help tackle crime, terrorism and illegal immigration.
It points out that the phased introduction of the cards and the accompanying National Identity Register will mean that a compulsory scheme, with penalties for non-compliance, will exist alongside a voluntary one.
From 2007, anyone renewing a passport will automatically be issued with an ID card and number, while those who do not need a new passport or do not possess one will not be subject to the regime.
The European Convention on Human Rights - which Labour incorporated into law in 1998 - does not bar ID cards but the committee suggests that ministers' plans to gather and record personal data go further than the law allows.
Under Article 8 of the convention, interference in private lives must be justified by a "pressing social need" and it has to be shown that the aims cannot be achieved by less intrusive means.
The committee says the details that can be held on the register, including previous addresses, travel abroad and records of the occasions on which such information has been provided to other agencies, would potentially provide "a detailed picture of private life".
The European Court of Human Rights has already ruled that holding information concerning an individual's distant past raises issues under Article 8. The Government maintains that the details to be held are unexceptionable and available elsewhere.
The ID Card Bill, now before Parliament, would allow for an "audit trail" of the occasions on which the register has been accessed, something the committee considered to be "potentially highly intrusive of privacy". The report also points to powers in the legislation that would allow biometric data already held on individuals, such as fingerprints, to be transferred without permission to the register.
The report goes on to challenge the basis of the scheme's introduction through passports. As the ID card is phased in there will be those required by law to have a card and to be registered, and those for whom it is not a requirement. The committee said this could be a breach of Article 14 of the convention which prohibits "unjustified discrimination on any grounds".
Overall, the committee is unconvinced that the Government has shown, as it must under human rights laws, that an ID card and a register would achieve aims and benefits that outweigh the intrusion into civil liberties.
Simon Hughes, of the Liberal Democrats, said: "This committee expresses deep dissatisfaction that the Government has not explained how its ID card plans are compatible with human rights."
Personally I'm becoming indifferent to ID cards. Plenty of other countries manage perfectly well with them. You are issued one much the same way as our NI card and then you can't obtain any other services without it i.e. driving licence, passport or benefits.
Information such as my travelling, previous addresses, etc is available elsewhere no doubt, just the same as my credit history is available. And, the USofA already has my fingerprints so I don't really care any more. Sorry.... but as far as I can tell all that information is out there anyway. I've nothing to hide.
Information such as my travelling, previous addresses, etc is available elsewhere no doubt, just the same as my credit history is available. And, the USofA already has my fingerprints so I don't really care any more. Sorry.... but as far as I can tell all that information is out there anyway. I've nothing to hide.
Said it before and I'll say it again.
What I chose to tell anyone is my own business. If they have sufficent authority 'they' can almost certainly find out anything they want about me from the colour of my eyes to the middle name of the grandmother of some girl I snogged in a nightclub 10 years ago. (okay so the last one might be streching it a bit!)
Thing is I don't see why I should have to carry around a card with hugh amounts of personal information on it. Not to mention what happens if said card fell in to the 'wrong hands'.
If it were limited to something like a Photocard Driving Licence with passport number, NI Number and emergancy details, such as name of GP, alergys and next of kin fine but can you honestly see 'them' resting at that?
What I chose to tell anyone is my own business. If they have sufficent authority 'they' can almost certainly find out anything they want about me from the colour of my eyes to the middle name of the grandmother of some girl I snogged in a nightclub 10 years ago. (okay so the last one might be streching it a bit!)
Thing is I don't see why I should have to carry around a card with hugh amounts of personal information on it. Not to mention what happens if said card fell in to the 'wrong hands'.
If it were limited to something like a Photocard Driving Licence with passport number, NI Number and emergancy details, such as name of GP, alergys and next of kin fine but can you honestly see 'them' resting at that?
Can someone outline the benfits of having and ID card system? Are you going to get arreseted and fined/imprisoned for leaving it in your other trousers/jacket? If you don't have to carry with you at all times what is the point of having it at all? ID cards don't seem to be for the good of the general population so why have them?
p.s. Are terrorists going to have to have their ID cards marked accordingly?
p.s. Are terrorists going to have to have their ID cards marked accordingly?
rude-boy said:
If it were limited to something like a Photocard Driving Licence
That's the sort of thing that I would see as acceptable but without stuff like passport number (could be tricky as I have two of them), etc. Just the basic details for picture ID, I would even let them have a finger print. But the key to me would be that you cannot get a passport without it, you cannot get benefits without it, you cannot get a driving licence without it. You get the picture. Plenty of other countries seem to manage this perfectly well.
The way I see it, ID cards make criminal justice a bit of a black-and-white issue. Problem is, of course, that as soon as you create a rule, a criminal comes up with an exception, so you'll get an undetectable underground existing outside of the ID sphere, and everyone with ID cards will be reined in mercilessly for any minor infringement.
What worries me is how sophisticated they are. £80 million seems like a hell of a lot for some cards, so you can bet they do more than it says on the tin. How much longer before it's like an electronic tag for an offender on an ASBO - they'll clock that you're doing 80 mph and you're not on a plane - hey presto, fined for driving down a motorway.
And think how many Police officers £80 million could recruit? The Liberal Democrats of all people have pointed this out, so we must be going to extremes with this.
What worries me is how sophisticated they are. £80 million seems like a hell of a lot for some cards, so you can bet they do more than it says on the tin. How much longer before it's like an electronic tag for an offender on an ASBO - they'll clock that you're doing 80 mph and you're not on a plane - hey presto, fined for driving down a motorway.
And think how many Police officers £80 million could recruit? The Liberal Democrats of all people have pointed this out, so we must be going to extremes with this.
Think on this folks - a foreign national (like me) living in the UK perfectly legally (like me) NEVER has to obtain a UK passport. I've retained my Irish passport since I came here almost 20 years ago. I've already renewed my Irish passport once and will be eligible to do so for the rest of my life.
Therfore, it looks like a foreign national legally living full time in the UK could always renew their foreign passport, and NEVER have to have a UK ID.
That seems to me to be discriminatory against British ctizens.
£80 million? I've heard the scheme will cost between £3 and £5 BILLION to set up.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Thursday 3rd February 14:40
Therfore, it looks like a foreign national legally living full time in the UK could always renew their foreign passport, and NEVER have to have a UK ID.
That seems to me to be discriminatory against British ctizens.
£80 million? I've heard the scheme will cost between £3 and £5 BILLION to set up.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Thursday 3rd February 14:40
DeltaFox said:
MilnerR said:
love machine said:
I'm not having one whether they chuck me in prison, make them sing and dance or if the thing entitles me to free tenners. I AM NOT HAVING ONE AND THAT IS THAT.
that makes two of us!
Three.
4.
Five.
How many do you think we'll need before they give the idea up?
chris_freebie said:
I don't see what difference it makes, if you have nothing to hide you already have various forms of ID forced upon you to make your way in the world - if you're on Pistonheads you have a driving license........ don't you ?
My driving licence is essential for driving. My ID card is not, it is just big brother breathing on me. I have enough of my freedom curtailed and this is where I draw the line. I'm not a criminal and I
sure as hell will not be treated like a South African black in the times of Pass Cards. I'm going to fully stand up on this one. It is a waste of taxpayers money and I'm voting with my feet. At some point the public have to stand up to this totalitarian government and the time is NOW. There will be mass outrage and I will fully be down for the cause. I hear about my bloody freedom every day and I've come to a conclusion that it's a myth. I'm aware of how it is in my interests and the world will be a safer place. BOLLOCKS!! 
Tony, if I see you in public I will spit at you! BASTARD!!!!!!!!I'm fed up with people using the "I have nothing to hide" knee jerk response to their support of ID cards. I can tell you that UK law is so complex, and there are so many laws, rules and regulations (and they are growing fast) that most of us don't even know whether we "have nothing to hide" at all.
Have you always been 100% truthful when disclosing your income to the Inland Revenue?
Have you ever had a tax investigation and been charged extra tax as a result?
Have you ever had a speeding fine?
Have you ever been less than truthful on an insurance claim?
Have you smacked your child?
Do you plan on hunting with hounds in the future?
Are you a professional (accountant, banker,) or a business dealing in cash who have failed to report an unusual transaction?
Have you driven a car over the drink driving limit?
These are all criminal offences now.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 4th February 08:18
Have you always been 100% truthful when disclosing your income to the Inland Revenue?
Have you ever had a tax investigation and been charged extra tax as a result?
Have you ever had a speeding fine?
Have you ever been less than truthful on an insurance claim?
Have you smacked your child?
Do you plan on hunting with hounds in the future?
Are you a professional (accountant, banker,) or a business dealing in cash who have failed to report an unusual transaction?
Have you driven a car over the drink driving limit?
These are all criminal offences now.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 4th February 08:18
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff