I am against any such card in principle, it offends against all our hard won freedoms, the ones we have left. The problem is that as now the large companies, pub groups, supermarkets and the rest will toady up to this corrupt government and all demand that we produce the ID card at every visit. Certainly the government is your enemy but so is every large company. I am sick and tired of goverment inspired notices in every shop and pub I visit, ie "eat five portions of vegetables", "don't use plastic bags" and so it goes on.

"It's a no-brainer," says Alan Johnson, 59-and-a-half.

"It's a no-brainer,"

Yes. Yes it is...

"..."there is “some nervousness” about carrying driving licences because they include people’s addresses, unlike the new cards"

This is one of the more ridiculous justifications I've heard. I don't think I've ever met anyone who is nervous about carrying a driving license. Perhaps I don't get out enough.

And (leaving aside why the hell anyone should be asked to produce a driving licence to buy something for cash) isn't any such nervousness (a) cheaply assuaged by removing the address from the face of the driving licence (which would also remove the need to surrender it and have it reissued when one moved house) and (b) likely to be much greater in respect of carrying and possibly losing a document that HMG is determined to make the key to one's whole life?

Perhaps I'm influenced by such things on this side of The Pond, but what is the big deal about photo ID? We have them, and by and large it's a non-issue (it's almost impossible to do anything without a driver's licence, especially buy booze -- which, lest we forget, can only be done legally at age 21, Over Here).

I know that the document can open up fears of database linkage -- distressingly, that has happened a few times here -- but the overwhelming benefits to society have proven, I think, that overall, photo ID is not that awful.

I think the big difference is that if the State starts abusing the photo ID in the U.S., we are quite able to have laws passed which prohibit such acts, especially in response to egregious abuse by officialdom. It used to be a felony, for example, for Texans with a concealed-carry licence (CHL, which is also a photo ID) not to carry it and hand it over (with the DL) when stopped for, say, a traffic violation. But we got the law changed, because it was plainly stupid -- and now it's a non-issue.

I know that photo ID carries the dreaded "papieren bitte" overtones -- and coupled with the inherent wish that one should not have to prove one's identity to the State, I can understand the fears of Britons in this regard. In point of fact, Britain is a far more-regulated society than the U.S. -- your officials get away with lots more than would ever be tolerated here -- and perhaps it's because Britons do not have Constitutional freedoms to the same degree as we do that Brits are so reluctant to have mandatory photo ID.

I know, photo ID shouldn't be necessary, in ideal circumstances. In ideal circumstances, we shouldn't need ANY laws at all.

But that's not the world we live in.

KdT:

See here. James Hall is the director of the government agency charged with implementing that.

As I noted in the original post "photo ID", in the form of proof of age cards that act as authentication of your age (and usually name as well) by a trusted third party, are widely available and hitherto have been supported by government.

This isn't just a photo ID card Kim, this will be an electronic tracker card, it will monitor your every move and purchase if they get their way.

You will then find on producing the card in the off licence that the assistant will say...

Sorreeee, you have had your limit of units for this week, we cant serve you etc etc.

Exactly, RAB. The current proof-of-age cards are photo ID. This is much more sinister. And Hall has just shown that he intends to use the confusion to his advantage.

The real effect? Data Fusion Centers collecting info from many,many sources, digesting it, and barfing it out to the Top Goons. Watch your insurance rates go up. Or watch your insurance cancel, based upon data
collected from everywhere. Your travel and buying habits are now a national security issue. And, a matter of budgetary considerations. Or guilt if charged.

Just living will be self-incrimination.

I know that the document can open up fears of database linkage -- distressingly, that has happened a few times here -- but the overwhelming benefits to society have proven, I think, that overall, photo ID is not that awful.

I have a vastly less flattering view of life in the USA (I have lived about 1/4 of my years there) and I think the "benefits to society" are far from proven. The US Constitution has been a dead letter on a great many issues for a great many years and the trend is clear... ID cards just make the process of extending the state ever deeper into everyone's lives a great deal easier.

"In point of fact, Britain is a far more-regulated society than the U.S. -- your officials get away with lots that will probably be tolerated here in a few years -- and perhaps it's because Britons do not have A Big Fancy Handkerchief like we do that Brits are so reluctant to have mandatory photo ID."

That's that tidied up.

Actually mike, in the "less regulated USA" in the here and now, it rather depends on taking a very selective view of things.

Sure, they can, in many places, still have the means to defend themselves, which is great... but civil forfeiture laws for people 'suspected' of crimes in the USA are more extra-judicial and more far reaching than almost anywhere in the First World. The sedition laws that allowed colonial authorities to seize property were one of the causes of the American Revolution, yet you did at least have to be convicted of sedition first... modern asset forfeiture laws do not even bother with that... your property gets seized on the *assumption* it is the proceeds of crime and then you have to sue to get it back if you are not convicted.

Likewise the sainted constitution hardly applies at all to the IRS, who also unlike the vast majority of national tax authorities seek a pecuniary interest in your lolly world-wide, not just within their borders of the USA.

Eminent domain... nuff said.

Unlike the UK, if you get arrested in the USA, you get handcuffed, automatically, even if you do not resist and are a 75 year old granny. Traffic cops are everywhere. Driving in the USA is an education in predatory tax gathering by police under the direction of local government. I have driven in more that a dozen nations and none of them police traffic like in the USA.

For me the peach that I will never forget when I was told, when living in New Jersey, that I was legally responsible for cleaning the snow away from the *public* footpath in front of my house, or I was liable if someone slipped and injured themselves.

When I reacted with astonishment, all those free living less regulated Americans reacted as if I was quite unreasonable to find this a bizarre imposition. My argument was logically I should therefore be able to erect a toll booth on that piece of path as if I am liable for what happens on it, I should have the right to limit access and charge for any services rendered.

And acceptance of constantly being asked for ID is an indication of how subordinated US civil society is. People would react with genuine surprise when I asked them "why?" every time I was asked for ID.

Regulation in the USA... better in a some ways than, say, the UK, but quite a bit worse in others.

I've never lived outside the US, and I was shocked to learn about the snow removal thing.

To Perry's list I'd add all the federal monetary crimes enacted in the 1980s, ostensibly to fight drugs (but really for taxes). Things like "structuring". Not many people in the US realize you can go to jail for five years if you split a large transaction into smaller ones for the purpose of avoiding currency transaction reporting. And that the bank is obligated to report you.

Oh, and when I used to play a lot of poker it was common knowledge you had to make sure not to keep more than $30k in cash, because if the cops found it they'd just... take it. Without any indication a crime had been committed. And there's no law stating you can't have above x amount of cash. Rule of law my ass.

"Actually mike, in the "less regulated USA" in the here and now, it rather depends on taking a very selective view of things."

Well that's right - "less regulated" - a deeply unfunny joke. I know a few conservative Americans over here in Taiwan, who irritate the hell out of me when they try to come off all "nation of freedom" and in the same breath mutter nonsense about "states rights".

Americans are now in the position of having to learn from people in other parts of the world about the meaning of freedom.

I cannot think of a more damning thing to say about them and their government. They are lost.

what is the big deal about photo ID?

As has been mentioned, this isn't about photo ID. I carry photo ID all the time (the aforementioned driving license). I have no problem producing it under reasonable circumstances. I showed it to a police officer the other day when I was at the scene of a car accident.

The issue is a new form of ID being produced by what, to my mind, is an increasingly authoritarian government. And one that has no qualms about using law enforcement measures to coerce the population into what they seem to believe is a more "moral" way of living.

And this seems to be the direction we're headed. The frontline of ID cards are UK supermarkets, who are about to implement a policy of asking for ID from everyone under 25 when buying "age restricted" products. Thus, the argument that we all have a need to constantly "confirm our identity" becomes a reality.

I don't believe it's a slippery slope either - the intention of the card appears to be a means of controlling behaviour, rather than a possible side effect for later abuse.

Photo ID, eh. Malaysia's had biometric IDs for eons now. Maybe the Asian mindset is different, I dunno.

Any government interaction, "Papers please!"
Financial institution interaction, "Papers please!"
New account with any corporate body, "Papers please!" Subsequent interactions sometimes require IC numbers, especially when suspending or cutting the accounts.

But buying fags and liquor and stuff? Hell, keep it below RM150 and they don't even need to see your credit card - or your signature!

"You will then find on producing the card in the off licence that the assistant will say...

Sorreeee, you have had your limit of units for this week, we cant serve you etc etc."

I just had this image pop into my mind of a middle class chap hanging around outside an off-license waiting for a feral youth to come along so he could ask him to buy a bottle of plonk. (And twenty Benson's.)