ID CARDS WILL NOT HELP

Among the many dreadful press intrusions, hysteria and distortions that the parents of murdered girls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman had to endure, the most brainless was the constant speculation regarding random circumstances leading up to the atrocity that could have been avoided, expressed in the overused catchphrase: “Holly and Jessica would still be alive today.” This became so regular a feature of lazy, rubbish writing that often it tipped into macabre farce. If police records were cross-referenced, Holly and Jessica would still be alive today. If parental supervision had been stricter, Holly and Jessica would still be alive today.

If they were at church instead of out for a walk, if they had been taught to be suspicious instead of friendly, if they hadn’t been David Beckham fans, if Ian Huntley had been run over by a steam roller, if an earthquake had split Soham apart or aliens had landed on the village green, yada, yada, yada, Holly and Jessica would still be alive today. All ludicrous speculation, massively hurtful to the bereaved parents and utterly pointless, since the poor girls are dead and nothing can change that.

But just when we thought all such rubbish has ceased, our own dear Herald lets us down. Someone writing in the paper this week as a lone voice supporter of ID cards, dug out the old phrase, blew the cobwebs off it, and told us with the confidence of an all- seeing deity, that if ID cards had been in force before the Soham murders … guess what? “Holly and Jessica would still be alive today.” Oh, give us a break.

However, this brief and unwelcome return to cliché at least serves some good, since Huntley’s case is perfect for demonstrating precisely the converse of the author’s argument, notably why ID cards are not only a gross infringement of personal liberties, but also a completely ineffective tool in combating serious crime. Huntley had no criminal record; therefore his ID card would have confirmed him to be squeaky clean. When applying for this imaginary card, there would have been nothing to stop him from doing so under his alias, since there are no cunning plans in place to circumvent this little piece of trickery.

The card will merely confirm that you are indeed who you said you were when you applied, were fingerprinted and biometrically measured. With just a little creative manoeuvring from someone wishing to fool the system, the card won’t have a bloody clue who you were before. So even if Huntley had indeed boasted a string of convictions, which of course he did not, avoiding detection would have been straightforward. But why are we even having this debate? Anyone who genuinely believes that home secretary David Blunkett is engineering this fascism for the greater security of the British public needs a bit of a lie down in a darkened room.

Joining the clichés in this debate is another outstandingly stupid phrase, trotted out by the same kind of radio phone-in guests who like to say: “This country would be nothing without the royal family,”and, “Immigrants come over here and live like kings on the taxpayer”. When questioned on why compulsory cards would be a good or a bad thing, the favoured response among such deep thinkers is inevitably: “If you’ve nothing to hide, what’s the problem?” Here’s the problem. Plenty of innocent people have things to hide, things that are absolutely nobody else’s business but their own, and is their right to keep concealed.

There are many people who choose to live under an alias for perfectly valid reasons: women fleeing violent relationships who fear their fist-wielding partner will track them down; parents who gave up their babies for adoption and never wish to be tracked down by their adult children, or even an ex-colleague of mine who was sexually abused as a child and wanted rid of the family back in Ireland who never believed her story and kept trying to find her. She wanted their name erased from her life and memory, and to ensure that her own children would never find them and make contact.

And what about the simple, daft, but life-affirming notion some innocent, law-abiding people experience when they take a fancy to living a new and completely anonymous life somewhere else under a brand new identity. Why shouldn’t they? None of these people are guilty or criminals, yet all of them have something they wish to hide. Blunkett’s scheme will make such simple freedoms, that we have so long taken for granted, impossible. Meanwhile, terrorists, fraudsters and organised crime will carry on regardless.

As you read this, there is doubtless someone already perfecting the reproduction and forgery of biometric cards. There are so many reasons why ID cards are an obscene infringement of human rights, and so very few why they will increase security and improve services. After the CSA example of outstandingly botched IT, you can bet the technology to introduce ID cards will throw up some nightmares. Sorry madam, you can’t travel/get health care/a library card/your university place. Why not? Card says you’re a convicted felon. But I’m not. Sorry, computer says no.

And, of course, those organisations that say they never pass on information without your express permission are so trustworthy, aren’t they? Try this revealing test at home. It’s a great one. Next time you order from a catalogue/online, anything with a box to tick for “do not share my data”, simply slip in a made up initial to your name. Sally K Smith. Then sit back and watch all the unsolicited brochures from new companies flood in to Sally K Smith. Gotcha. Invent a new initial for each new company then every transgression becomes traceable.

Make no mistake; the government will sell your data. No coincidence that Blunkett made the allusion to the supermarket loyalty card. And what will that data include? HIV positive? Member of a political party? Recovering addict? Who can be sure? I’m innocent and I have much to hide. It’s called my private life. (Source: Sunday Herald)