NO2ID

I keep hearing from some sources it will be compulsory to carry your card at all times.

Then i hear it wont as the government knew that that would irritate a lot of normal, law-abiding citizens and jeopardise the law's finally getting through and overall 'support'

It seems theres a lot of misinformation circulating round about the rules and regs behind the scheme for when it comes into practice.

Can anyone help on this issue?

Ta xx

Further legislation would be required to make it compulsory to carry an ID card. The most relevant part of the Identity Cards Act is Section 13(3) which closes down one possible mechanism by which the government might have introduced such a measure.


Note, however, that there is nothing in the legislation preventing different regulations from imposing such a burden at some time in the future.

I thought s.16 did?

s16 has opt outs for further regulations

Not sure it does quite... a) would require another enactment (which AFAIK means primary legislation not regulations), b) allows an alternative to ID Cards to be used. I agree that c) would allow regulations to do this, but only after the scheme becomes compulsory (which itself requires primary legislation).

But not necessarily new primary legislation. Regulations made under e.g. the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 might possibly impose such a requirement if the Secretary of State decides that it would improve administrative efficiency to do so and he can satisfy himself of the reasonableness of the measure.

Ah. Bollocks, then.

Edit: I vaguely recall talk of affirmative procedures being required for that kind of thing...? i.e. it needs to be actively passed by the Commons? Or am I thinking of something else? I thought it was the LegReg...

Yes, that's the Act. It still contains provisions for negative resolution, affirmative resolution and super-affirmative resolution. It is up to the Minister to make a recommendation on which method should be adopted, although Parliament can pass a resolution to increase the requirements if there is a sufficient majority in favour of such action, i.e. active opposition.

They are just wrong. The whole subject is surrounded by rumour and misunderstanding. Even most of the proponents don't seem to grasp it, and are reading from a brief.

Compulsion to carry the card is irrelevant for two reasons: 1. because what's important is the database not the card, and 2. by making it very inconvenient to do any number of things without it, Whitehall will make you want to carry the card. This seems to have been deliberately set up as an elephant-trap by the Home Office. And boy do the elephants on our side run into it, trumpeting gaily.

It is necessary to pay attention to what the official documents actually, literally, say, not the broad impression they convey, nor what you think they must intend on the basis of your own imagination of how you'd run a scheme. Lots of otherwise quite bright people fail to do that, with the result that some notable journalists and MPs have inadvertently spread false rumours and given ministers a chance to score points.

You say they'll make you want to carry the card by making life difficult for those who don't...

But doesnt the law explicitly state that they can't demand ID for use of a public service? Or will it be through use of things in the private sector that people will want to use it for like staying in hotels?

Actually, what will it be necessary to have an ID card to do once the scheme is in full swing?

The Identity Cards Act 2006 does explicitly rule out requiring an ID card for the provision of public services until after the scheme is made universally compulsory - which would require further primary legislation. N.B. ministers strongly implied that they would be bringing forward such legislation after the next general election (assuming Labour won).

As Guy indicated, the card is nothing but a populist distraction.

Think of it this way: How many times have you needed to produce your actual National Insurance card? The one we're all issued with at age 16?

I don't know about you, but I find that I have to recite my NI number far more often than anyone asks to see the actual card. Conclusion? The bit of plastic is nothing but a placebo, the only thing that matters to anyone is the number, the index into the database.

You may refuse to carry an ID card. Good for you. But will you also refuse to get registered? Despite knowing that all manner of things may be increasingly difficult to arrange without a state approved number to validate your existence?

This is the kind of weasel inevitability that the authorities are betting on us accepting. Most people, after all, only want a quiet life.

I hope we surprise them.

Actually even that is not quite right, it rules out asking for the card for free public services or obtaining payments, unless reasonable alternative means of identification are offered.

So, even within the existing law public authorities could still demand ID card or registration details provided it was in connection with a paid-for service. And you still might have to fight them in the courts to prove their other ID criteria were unreasonable in order to get other services.

Ahh but surely it's the case that all those who are registered on the database will be issued with a card by default?

Also, wont the card be the padlock that unlocks the data held in the database or have I got that wrong?

I understand that from the standpoint of a government official or otherwise authorised person, all that's required to access a given person's records is know their respective NIR number, but what about anybody else - most imporatntly us, i.e., the cardholder and person to whom the card has been issued?




Otherwise known as compulsion by stealth.


This seems to have been deliberately set up as an elephant-trap by the Home Office. And boy do the elephants on our side run into it, trumpeting gaily.



I suspect that that is something the architects of this scheme are relying on

Name, address and date of birth would be sufficient IF the database is clean, accurate and up-to-date. It won't be, but there is a reason that the 1,000 pound fines were included in the ID Cards Act.

We have absolutely no idea what the protocols to access the system will be, either internally or externally. Whatever the theoretical requirements to specify an unique record, it is the bureaucratic procedures necessary to get information in and out that determine the actual or ostensible authority to do so. They aren't set out in the Act and may not even be in the regulations, even though from the point of view of system security they will be the most important elements. (It is not how it works, it is how it breaks, as ever.)

What's more we can be fairly sure that the IPS doesn't yet have an idea, either. (It seems to be unable to specify much more fundamental structural things.)

It's worse than that. As I see it, 'they' are under the illusion it'll work something like this:



Make no mistake. The database will not be clean, accurate, or up-to-date. There are far too many people's personal agendas for it to be otherwise.

It's just downright weird. Databases have been around since the 1960's. SQL itself was invented in the late 70's. Why doesn't this government understand that it's not some kind of space-age voodoo?

I firmly believe that this unworkable plan will run into insurmountable opposition from many corners of British society. Some will be unwilling to give up the illusion of personal liberty. Others will be unable to accept unprecedented demands on disclosing their every change in personal circumstance.

I'm heartened by the increasingly vocal opposition to such moves. The BBC recently hosted a Have your say on the 'personal views' of a Lord Justice Sedley. This senior appeals court judge thinks that it's unfair that the current UK DNA database only enrolls criminals.

Why should criminals be discriminated against?

Oh, wait. The clue's in the etymology.