NO2ID

I can't make any headway in debate with pro-id folks on messgae boards. I would really like to understand and develop some of the arguments, but whenever I point out a hole in the scheme, I can't find anyone on the "pro" side with a logical answer - they either ignore the point (most usually) or cite something illogical or unprovable.

Is there a pro-id cards campgain anywhere except the Home Office where I could ask about why they think it's a good idea and get some logical answers?

I would be incredibly surprised...

This kind of behaviour is new to you?
Why are you bothering?

Maybe we should start a satirical yes2id website? Anyone want to contribute articles for it, extolling the very many benefits of the marvellous new Register and the wonderful integrity of our brilliant politicians?

I am told that Labour has been disappointed there has been no spontaneous movement supporting this "overwhelmingly popular" idea. Which shows how out of touch they now are.

Most people do not know and do not care.

The fanatics are few, and (like Nicky Palmer, Martin Salter and Martin Linton MPs), want any ID card system, not just this one, because they instinctively feel that it is right and good for the well-meaning authorities to check up on bad people. Since it is driven by an authoritarian fantasy of a world made safe by control this group cannot see counterarguments at all.

There are rational supporters of the scheme, but they are fewer still. Their views aren't easy to characterise, but I have noticed a tendency towards utilitarian disregard for costs to individuals on the basis of supposedly outweighing benefits to other individuals or the collective. Curiously this calculus is seldom quantified clearly and where quantification is attempted it tends to rely uncritically on the assertions of the government and the fanatics.

This is interesting - I want the authorities to check up on bad people too. What I don't like (and what is implicit in the ID card scheme) is the assumption that we're all bad. I admit it's a subtlety lost on the pro-schemers.

I did find a pro-ID blogger http://brightonregencylabourparty.blogspot.com/

On "The Daily Politics" show yesterday that was the only pro id card site they could find after trawling the web extensively.

There was irony intended. Unlike you, I submit, the pro-schemers affirm the consequent. It is their assumption not that everyone is bad, but that if the authorities check up on you, you must be bad. Not only do those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear, but there is no smoke without fire. Implicit in this is the assumption that the authorities themselves and the people within them can never be bad, corrupt, vindictive, idle, or mistaken.

There are some rather bizarre statements on this pro-id blog thingy, such as :



...

And strictly hard of thinking - the statements are bizarre. They are a series of unfounded assumptions. If I wish to operate under a false identity, then why not? Providing no one is hurt, what harm is done? There are perfectly legitimate reasons for using one or more false personae - abusive relationships, undercover operations, witness protection and, perhaps the most obvious, the nome de plume used by writers who have traditionally hidden their identity and even gender. So what? Whose business is it anyway. The assumption that we are intending to do so for nefarious purposes says much about Mr Harding and his rather skewed view of the world.

The assumption Mr Harding makes that our lives are the state's business and that our liberties must be curtailed for the benefit of the state is absurd.

This sounds like a great idea. I'd love to contribute to a satirical 'Yes2ID' website.

The quoted writer has it precisely back-to-front. A contempt for civil liberty is very plainly here equivalent to a terrifyingly deep trust in officialdom and a desire for a wholly regulated society. He thinks individuals ought not to be permitted any freedom that we might misuse, indeed that the desire for freedom is a sign of evil intent, whereas government is all-wise and benevolent.

A civil liberty is an entitlement to do something in civil society with the government (or other third party) having no right to interfere. It is something you don't need permission from an official to do. It does seem to some of us desirable that the number of such personal or collective liberties remains as high as possible, and that the government needs a very good reason to remove any of them, even those we happen not to be using at the moment.

With the quotes you selected I was just demonstrating that civil liberties are a two way thing. Your liberties are not the same as mine and they can conflict.

For example; my liberty to smoke in your local pub might be against your liberty to breathe clean air, in fact the whole communities liberty to breathe clean air is compromised.

Or; your civil liberty not to have to produce ID, is against mine and everyone's else liberties not to have our identities stolen.

So, to just say 'it is against my civil liberties', is not enough. You have to demonstrate why those particular liberties are important.

In the case of your liberty not to produce ID, you have to say what practical detriment this will be to your life.

I assume you all think its a good idea to have driving licences. Nobody asks; why should I have to prove to anyone else that I can drive? Its my business. Yet this is the same argument you use against ID cards. Proof is a necessary inconvenience caused by the untrustworthiness of a minority. It is to the detriment of all of us, to trust everyone without question and the inconvenience is a very, very small price to pay.

Mr Harding, I think you have this the wrong way round. We are arguing for the status quo whilst you are arguing for change. It is therefore your task to put forward a solid case for curtailing civil liberties or accept the status quo.

Black Cloud

Black Cloud took the words right out of my keyboard.
Further your quote above implies that not producing ID would somehow increase, or be responsable for, identity theft; not the case.
The analogy with driving is incorrect; driving without having training would increase the risk of accidents. A driving licence is simply an indication of having been trained to a standard, not a state-owned permission to simply exist. Stop drawing paralells where there are none.

Walking along the street is a little different to screaming down the road in a machine that can weigh upward of a few tons. Most people would agree that a solid certificate in driving from a reputable authority is a must before anyone is allowed on public roads, and that public roads need to be maintained, however that's a whole world away from New Labour's vision of mandatory GPS tracking and surveillance of all vehicles.

Road tax, as odious as it is, suffices for maintaining infrastructure, and the current pass standards for UK licenses are amongst the highest in the world. As long as the license contains matching information in the DVLA's database, I hardly even see the need for a photograph on the license, let alone added biometric yumminess. I also don't see the need for an identifier unique to the NIR being added. The DVLA database functions quite well (or not, in some cases) without it. Extra information isn't going to make it better.

I think you confuse having to prove you can handle a couple of litres of raw power in a crowded environment with having to be licensed, tracked and logged at every turn to do anything at all.

I doubt that many here are claiming a liberty not to identify themselves where necessary and appropriate. What they object to is the imposition of this government's unjustified, ineffective, expensive and highly intrusive proposals for ID cards and a National Identity Register. Provided people accept the need to identify themselves in circumstances where this is necessary and reasonable, their rejection of ID cards and the NIR will not reflect in any way on other people's liberty to be free of identity based fraud.

For my part I would welcome a more convenient and more effective means of personal identification provided that this is under my sole control in all circumstances and is not imposed on others who have no need for it. Moreover, I am not opposed to a self funded, irrevocably voluntary ID card scheme since I would not wish to prevent others who think ID cards have value from having them.

But I have profound objections to being forced to pay for an ID card for which I have no need in order to provide supposed benefits for others when every analysis that has so far been undertaken to show that such benefits exist and are sufficent to justify the costs involved has ended in failure.

It is also ironic that this government, which sees itself as socialist. is proposing a scheme in which those who are rich will be able to buy exemptions while those with profound objections who are not well off will have the scheme imposed on them under duress of large fines. So it won't just be pensioners going to prison for non-payment of Council Tax - so much for social justice!

No. It is true that to say 'it is against civili liberties' is not enough. In fact it is meaningless. As previous posters have pointed out, civil liberties are not the same as enforceable rights. They are what you are entitled to do without interference from, or accounting to, officialdom.

It is not up to anyone to demonstrate that liberties are important. From breathing, to joining a union, to choice of pizza topping, they are ours: they are the whole substance of private lives.

What you write suggests you do not accept the central presumption of free societies, which is that the onus is on anyone who wishes to restrict or remove control of any elements of their lives from people to show good reason. This means any public policy is required to demonstrate that its purpose is sufficiently important to set aside any liberties that it affects, that the measures to be taken are directed to the purpose, and that those measures have a reasonable prospect of achieving that purpose without producing problems worse than those (if any) they solve. (I, for one, do not assume that all, or even most, public policy does anything useful towards its putative purpose.) We can differ on how easy it is to decide in individual cases, but the principle holds good whatever liberty is involved.

There is not a class of liberties that is unimportant and can be trampled regardless of consequence, even if there is (as some, even in the present Government, maintain) a set of inalienable rights that cannot be. Even if you maintain there is a valid trade-off of the rights of some against the liberties of others, it is up to you to show that the trade-off does exist and that to make it is justified in the circumstances. Merely proclaiming that your right trumps my liberty because it is "more important" is no more than a rhetorical trick unless they are genuinely in conflict at a certain point.