NO2ID

Hi

I am sure this has been asked around many times before, maybe I have missed the thread, in which case I'm sorry, but...

The Human Rights legislation gives us some protection under the right to privacy. Can any of this be used to fight against state intrusion? I'm thinking of course of ID cards but maybe other forms of intrusion too such as the amassing of a DNA database, the tracking of my car's movements through CCTV and numberplate-recognition software, etc.

cheers

For a little bit of light bedtime reading, the JCHR's Identity Cards Bill response is here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200405/jtselect/jtrights/35/35.pdf

The Home Office response to that is here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200405/jtselect/jtrights/60/6012.htm#a51

Nice to see an easily accessible version (errr, an incomplete TIFF) of the above at http://www.identitycards.gov.uk.

Ah Ha an interesting item, the need to provide a signature, now if the registration forms are anything like the passport applications then the field for the signature is far to small for normal use (well my use anyway) - the rules require that the signature MUST be totally within the rectangle.

When you register make sure that your signature cannot be within the bounds of such.

The relevant article of the HRA is Article 8:

"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

There is no debate that the NIR will be an intrusion into your private life as defined by Article 8 (1).

All the government has to do is justify it using Article 8 (2).

(Mods: should this be moved to legal questions?)

In order for you to use the HRA in this form, you'd have to make the case that ID cards did invade your privacy unecessarily and a way the injurous to you. Given that any claims of protecting national security are likely to outweight this, I would imagine you're going to have a very tough time convincing any jury as to the validity of your claim.

A problem created by the government and not really effected by passports. It is we who have allowed the government to put us in danger. Ofcourse passports have zero effect on terroritsts ability to attack us. Look at the NIR for example.

Regardless of whether terrorism is a problem, ID cards don't help.

Privacy International research indicates that there is no link between identity cards and the prevalence of terrorism: “Of the 25 countries that have been most adversely affected by terrorism since 1986, eighty percent have national identity cards, one third of which incorporate biometrics. This research was unable to uncover any instance where the presence of an identity card system in those countries was seen as a significant deterrent to terrorist activity.”

See items 61-63 of this paper:

http://www.no2id.net/IDSchemes/newMPbriefing2005.pdf

While you're there, read the rest of it, and find out a few facts about the proposed ID card scheme.

Which is an idiot's reading of ECHR.

I agree that it is not the magic that many cuddly lefties seem to think it is, but "national security" does not automatically trump ECHR, and nor does mere assertion of purpose for a measure constitute evidence that it fulfils the criteria for overriding charter rights, which are that it is prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society for in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Taken as a whole those exceptions do give little practical protection against a determined state, but "necessary for national security" is quite a strong test, not met by demonstrating that the object and function is national security (which is contradicted by the Act). The jurisprudence of Human Rights has softened the necessity test, by adducing the idea of 'proportionality' which the courts have sucked out of the reference to "democratic society". So it would actually suffice for the state to show that the restriction of rights was proportionate to the goal, which is how ID cards per se have been ruled not to be contrary to Article 8. However it is always going to be open to challenge a particular system and a particular use if they have special disproportionate features that the court might deem incompatible with a 'democratic society' (whatever that is).

It may be that williamsds is recalling the UK's derogations from the Convention in relation to certain terrorism legislation, but there is no such derogation in relation to the Identity Cards Act. If one were to be notified, it would be big news, since it would indicate that the Government had changed its mind since the Secretary of State certified the Bill was compatible with the Human Rights Act, and considered there was some potential conflict.

moderation: split thread to untangle its themes - "right to a passport" and "judicial review" and "Unconstitutional?/civil penalty" discussions now separate. And an irrelevant interjection removed to "moderated".