NO2ID

... talk about 'spinning' the argument ...

http://www.ips.gov.uk/passport/privacy.asp

Section 9 para 2 reads: "A passport is not an identity document although
many organisations accept it as evidence of identity."

So why have I been showing immigration/ customs a passport all these years ?
And if it's not an identity document, why exactly do I need to carry one
when travelling abroad ?

Because its primarily an entitlement document: the passport is claim that you are a citizen of xyz country and that entitles you to certain rights when it comes to traveling in other countries. The Nationality attribute is the critical attribute in terms of the use of the document: the other attributes, such as your name, photograph etc serve other purposes e.g. to authenticate that the person to whom the entitlement was given is the person holding the document; that the person is not on some "watch list" etc

The same argument would apply to driving licenses.

These documents, however, are often used to verify identity because the party who needs to verify the identity has sufficient trust in the issuer of the document and the validity of the document that they will accept the claim.

For similar reasons banks will accept a utility bill as proof of address but not an invoice from your local butcher.

On
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categ ... h_passport
it reads:

"Your Irish passport is an important legal document. It is evidence of your identity ..."

Sounds like not every country is singing from the same hymn sheet ?

Ah, but evidence != proof


But this is an interesting spin - I guess legislation will be required to promote biometric Passports up the ladder to 'Proof of ID' rather than a personalised travel document.

Ultimately I think the notion of a single identity document to rule them all is a nonsense. Identity is context-specific and the factors that make up your identity depend on that context. Just because the government deems an ID card issued by the IPS as an identity document does not make it so: it's only so for those contexts where the parties involved agree to accept it as proof of identity.

If you take this 'proof' of identity thing to it's ultimate conclusion - I can't actually PROVE my name or nationality or anything else about me, if I were pressed really hard to do so.

If I were devious, then I could acquire someone else's birth certificate on application for a few quid, and over a few years work up a credit rating with my new fictious name, and acquire utility bills and even sit a driving test with my new ID, and eventually obtain a passport (providing one hasn't already been issued in that name and DoB). Each piece of my new identity jigsaw would be based upon the previous piece, and if the original base-line data itself was false, then the whole lot is false (obviously).
Ultimately the only 'proof' I have that I-am-who-I-say-I-am is my word and a checkable personal history which would be reliant upon the word of anyone who is called upon to confirm this. But I couldn't actually 'prove' any of it.

What I don't understand about the issuing of identity cards is how the h#ll do you adequately prove your identity in order that said identity card can be issued to you ? Would a driving licence/ passport/ utility bill be considered adequate proof ? If so, then this is a nonsense, as these are not guarantees of identity (uk webpage says so ...). And if they ARE considered adequate for proving identity sufficient such that an identity card can be issued on the strength of them, then why do we need any additional method of proof ? Except for Big Brother's convenience of course ...

I'd be rolling around laughing if it wasn't so serious.

Absolutely. That's the reason why there will be an interview process rather than reliance on other documents. Even then its no guarantee - either you blag the interview; bribe the interviewer; fake the card and then you have a card which others - because the government will make strenuous efforts to peruade them to - will accept as the 'gold standard' of identity and away you go.

This is one of the major weaknesses of the REAL I'd proposals in the US: the organisations that issue drivers licenses are just not geared up to do it and the enrollment processes are inconsistent.

An identity chain is only as strong as its weakest link and that link is often enrollment.

It has been said time and time again, absolute proof of identity isn't a necessary requirement for th id enrollment programme to work in the long run as once an indentity card has been issued the identity card holder is stuck with this identity for ever and can't assume multiple identities as is possible with the flawed 'this is who I am' bits of paper currently available.

Is there any evidence to suggest that it is possible to create a registration scheme that does not allow multiple enrolments from an enrolled population of approximately 40 million? Can you point to any such existing schemes?

There is no evidence, it is all theory. The great national identity card experiment will produce the evidence in due course. I have no doubt that you will be the first to provide proof of multiple identities.

If it isn't an identity document then why do we have to go and get interrogated? Sounds like spin to me.

The only type of document a UK passport is a damned expensive one!

I was under the impression that the National Insurance Number allocation process was designed for unique enrollment by the printing from a single source of a paper based uniquely numbered form. I have briefly searched for evidence, and will continue to - but I recall being told by a highly reliable source that the NIN system was the closest to fool-proof that you could get (probably because no IT is involved in the generation of the number!). The logical next question would be, why wouldn't the UK Govt be happy to use the NIN as a unique identifier?

You would be incorrect there, the NIN system is not fool-proof ( they forgot to plan for the fool ) one person may aquire two numbers by te simple method of getting married or by going to live in a different country for a few years then coming back. In the case of leaving the country the flackeys who are responsible for the NIN system should cancel your number and then upon your return your supposed to re-register and recieve a new one but in some many caes that simply hasnt happened.

Lets not forget that those same flackeys sometimes see details to the records with similar names & DOB's (and yes it does happen) and assume its an error and try to correct it, leaving one person up the creek without an NIN & one person totally confused when they work out they haave two for no apparent reason

Any IT system, especially databases != ( != - means doesnt equal in some programming languages ) fool-proof or secure or even reliable

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070207/text/70207w0034.htm


Note that there are not 76 million people eligible to work in the UK. The adult population numbers only about 40 million.

[rant alert]

The more human identity is reduced to a single 'one ring to find them' the more it becomes apparent (or should do!), what an inhuman idea it is. One that demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of what 'identity' is and means. 'Identity' is, as has already been stated, entirely a matter of context and trust. It is in fact a very 'human' matter of relationships, and very much NOT a mechanical process involving objects.

Treating human beings like 'objects' really only works if it's about the efficient running of gas chambers, or such like. In ordinary day to day life 'identity' can only be realistically handled effectively within a narrowly defined context, e.g. crossing a national border, applying for an insurance policy, etc., and each context has to be treated uniquely and on its own terms. The more we look for a 'final solution' the more the reality and fluidity of human relationships and personal identity has to be ignored (along with the fundamental implausibility and wickedness of trying to reduce and control a person's identity in such a mechanical 'inhuman' way).

I realise this 'emotional' argument would be strenuously rejected by the proponents of the present 'ID/NIR' scheme, but only because they are unwilling or unable to face the actual implications of what is proposed. It is fundamentally NOT about protecting our identities, but in practice will produce exactly the opposite effect. Which is perhaps why the historic role of passports offers such a good contrast. A basically humane system applied in a very specific context and dependant on trust (which the vast majority of users do not, and have no intention, of breaking).

Arguments that 'the world has changed' are true only to a very limited extent and should be given the weight they deserve---not a lot. 'The world has changed' can be used to justify anything. In fact humanity is as honest/dishonest in its transactions as it always has been. Inefficient and oppressive identity management schemes will do absolutely nothing to change that, but will have a wonderful impact on undermining whatever trust and faith does exist amongst the people towards the state that supposedly 'serves' their needs.

So, far better to develop a relationship between citizen and state that is co-operative and trusting, and put in effective targeted measures to inconvenience and threaten the 'criminals', rather than the rest who need not trouble the limited resources of the state, e.g. a well run system for monitoring who enters and leaves the country.

It would help a great deal if politicians, civil servants, and others could relax and accept that there is no panacea, and that the closer we get to finding 'one ring to rule them all' the closer we get to exactly the kind of life and nation that no one wants to live in.

thats totally ridiculous ,the passport has all the important details of
your identification.... I can see no reason why can't we use it as an ID.

This is down to semantics on behalf of the IPS. What's an 'identity document' as opposed to something that can be used to assert identity. My guess is that the IPS defines an identity document along the lines of "a document expressly designed for the purposes of identification",

Also, I would add that it's not enough for a document to have "all the important details": it also have to be trusted by the party requesting the information. That's why the passport or driving license, in contrast to a tennis club membership card, is often used as a means of identification: it's trusted.

Actually a passport is an identity document because even though the document IS ALSO an entitlement document it entitles PARTICULAR ENTITIES to a particular entitlement and its use is limited to the holder who is identified by certain characteristics and photographic impressions. If the holder cannot be identified by the description and photograph (scar under right eye - tattoo on left arm etc) then the passport becomes invalid. Only if the identity matches conclusively that of the holder is the passport valid.
The passport identifies the holder as the person entitled to right of travel

It IS an identy document because without the identity of the holder being established as a geniuine identity match the document is invalid and only the passport needs be shown as a means of identity

Those of us who say a passport is 'not an identity documen't are being somewhat pedantic. A passport today is, de facto, an identity document, but this has occurred by evolution and common acceptance, since originally a passport was NOT technically an 'ID'. That legacy is still retained inside the front cover of a UK passport: 'Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State requests and requires...to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance...'.

A passport was originally effectively a letter of recommendation, and also reminding the receiving state that this person travelled under the 'care' of the British state, i.e. there might be repercussions if they weren't treated nicely.

Whether the legal status of a 'passport' has ever been officially updated, or challenged, I have no idea.