Sir:

We were surprised by some of David Aaronovitch's comments in his column
("Why I can't wait for my identity card", September 23), as many do not
stand up to basic research.

He mentions "the fuzz" would welcome the introduction of an ID scheme,
yet the Association of Chief Police Officers admits that they already
have little trouble identifying suspects and the Home Secretary doesn't
intend making it compulsory to carry one with you.

He writes that social service managers want the scheme, yet social
security fraud more usually involves the misdeclaration of income.

He writes that health service managers want it, yet Dr Fleur Fisher, a
former Head of Ethics Science and Info at the BMA (and former NHS
Manager) tells us that "discriminating against treating a patient
because of failure to present an ID card is as ethically unacceptable as
refusing treatment to enemy wounded, handicapped or black patients."

He implies that the French ID card scheme is perfectly flawless, yet it
is widely recognised that North African immigrants are substantially
more likely to be asked to present their cards than white Europeans,
much like the problems we've seen with our own stop and search laws.

We can understand that he might feel that a single state-issued ID would
make his life easier, if he really does carry the 10 items of plastic
that he listed at all times. We can't help but wonder, though, how his
opinion would change once he had suffered the severe inconvenience of
losing that single card.  Especially if he had to pay upwards of £40 for
a new one -- and was on social security benefits or the minimum wage.

One of Blunkett's purported aims with an ID scheme would be to defeat
identity theft.  It would prove very difficult to contest a fraud if
the fraudster were using "your" forged ID card, with their biometric
on it.  The biometric technologies that David Blunkett has mentioned
are likely to prove too immature for such widespread use; security
researchers have beaten most current systems with little effort.
Rather than defeating identity theft, this could make the concept
scarily more effective.

Of course, David Aaronovitch would know all this already, had he read
up on the issue rather better.  He could look at the reports submitted
to the Home Office consultation by Stand.org.uk, the Foundation for
Information Policy Research, http://www.fipr.org/ and Liberty,
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/

Yours,


Owen Blacker, volunteer, Stand (London, GB)
Ross Anderson, Reader in Security Engineering, Cambridge University (GB)
Ian Brown, director, FIPR (London, GB)
Tony Bunyan, director, Statewatch (London, GB)
James Cronin, volunteer, Stand (London, GB)
Gareth Crossman, head of policy, Liberty (London, GB)
Simon Davies, director, Privacy International (London, GB)
Fleur Fisher, former Head of Ethics Sci and Info, BMA (Devon, GB)
Caoilfhionn Gallagher, senior researcher, Liberty (London, GB)
Yoz Grahame, volunteer, Stand (London, GB)
Cait Hurley, volunteer, Stand (London, GB)
Manar Hussein, volunteer, Stand (London, GB)
Mark Littlewood, campaigns director, Liberty (London, GB)
Tom Loosemore, volunteer, Stand (London, GB)
Stefan Magdalinski, volunteer, Stand (London, GB)
Danny O'Brien, volunteer, Stand (San Jose, California)
Rhon Reynolds, Assistant Director: Social Analysis, 1990 Trust (London, GB)
Andy Robson, journalist (London, GB)
Alaric Snell, volunteer, Stand (London, GB)
Stuart Tily, volunteer, Stand (London, GB)