Meetings in 2008
27 May 2008 - Where do we go next with the Scottish ID Card? and AGM
The group's coordinator, John Welford, described the briefing meeting
for MSPs held at the Scottish Parliament on 17 April. There had been
three speakers - John Welford, speaking as a 'concerned pensioner',
Jim Kinney, Director of Operations at the Improvement Service and
Phil Booth, NO2ID National
Coordinator. John Welford had emphasized that the entitlement
card had all the essential characteristics of an ID card. He showed a
comparison
table of the former local authority bus pass, the new Entitlement
Card and the proposed UK ID Card. Contrary to the assumption of the
Improvement Service, it was a disadvantage rather than an advantage to
have travel, library and other access facilities all dependent on a
single card. Fuller information is at http://www.jwelford.demon.co.uk/snec/report.pdf.
Jim Kinney had said that the Improvement Service was a partnership
between the Scottish Executive, the Convention of Scottish Local
Authorities (COSLA) and the Society of Local Authority Chief
Executives (SOLACE). It was intended to coordinate and improve the IT
systems of the 32 local authorities in Scotland. He had described in
some detail this particular project, 'Customer
First', which was intended to help ensure that citizens obtained
the services to which they were entitled. He had shown a different
comparison table of the three cards, which was disputed by Mr
Welford.
Phil Booth had emphasized data security, protection and privacy. They
were all needed but were not the same as each other. He had
shown a diagram from the
Improvement Service which had links to the individual's data records
from the DVLA, HMRC, NHS and other organizations not hitherto
publicized. He had drawn attention to the Young Scot
card which should not have the date of birth printed on the card.
If there were no published Terms and Conditions for the Entitlement
Card, how could the citizen sensibly agree to data sharing? How could
the citizen opt out?
John Welford added that even if the citizen had chosen to opt out of
data sharing, how could he be sure that his data were not shared? The
current situation had created a dilemma for the anti-ID card Scottish
Parliament.
In the AGM part of the meeting John Welford, David Muxworthy and John
Wood were re-elected as Edinbugrh group coordinator, secretary and
treasurer respectively.
30 April 2008 - Iain
Smith MSP (Scottish Liberal Democrats)
Mr Smith had kindly agreed to speak
at short notice as the original speaker, Margaret Smith who also was a
Lib Dem MSP, was indisposed. He said that the Liberals had a
strong historical association with supporting civil liberties going
back to the time of slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries. It was
that aspect of policy which had attracted him to join the
party.
He
emphasized that it was the database that was the problem - NO2ID
should put emphasis on the dangers of the database rather than the ID
card itself. Databases were everywhere nowadays. Showing
his Nectar card, he said he had bought a shredder with his Nectar
bonus points, which was somewhat ironic. The dangers of databases
increased with their size: the ID card database would be the most
dangerous ever created.
There was a contrast between the liberties of the many compared with
the liberties of the individual. Labour seemed to be unable to
comprehend individuals' rights. Opponents of ID cards had been
characterized as being weak on anti-terrorism, which was nonsense.
Detention without charge for 28 days was already longer than in any
democratic country and no case had been made for extending the
limit. Other means could be used, for example phone-tap evidence
and removing the ban on post-charge questioning. There was no
evidence whatever that ID cards would reduce terrorism, despite what
the Home Office website said, and ID cards would promote ID theft
rather than prevent it. The way to keep data secure was not to
keep it in the first place. Health and finance data were at
risk, giving increased scope for fraud and
blackmail.
How
would future governments use these data? Why did Labour need
them? We must guard against any government acquiring the tools for a
police state. Already such tools tended to be used against
ethnic minorities. ID cards also threatened freedom of travel.
Combating terrorism was an ever-present justification for
restrictions, even when there was no evidence.
ID
cards would cost up to £18 billion over ten years. The Lib
Dem policy would be to spend the money elsewhere. ID cards were
likely to cost up to £300 per person. Lib Dems would
continue to fight against their introduction. There would be a
good chance of abandonment if Labour did not have an overall majority
after the next Westminster election.
Mr
Smith's birthday was the following day and he was presented with DVDs
of the feature film 'Taking
Liberties' and the Group's own 'ID-Day Demonstration' (also
available on You
Tube).
5 March 2008 - Jamie
Hepburn MSP (SNP)
Mr Hepburn, Convener of the Cross-Party Group in the Scottish
Parliament on Human Rights and Civil Liberties said that one of the
objectives of the group was to raise public awareness of civil
liberties and to warn of the dangers of losing those rights for which
our forebears had fought. The publicity for the meeting had mentioned
1984. He did not think that we were yet in a 1984-like state. The
significance of civil liberties and broader concepts of human rights
were all too often maligned and downplayed, but little was of more
importance to the human experience than the rights and freedoms that
were all too often taken for granted.
He was alarmed by the advent of the state-led database society and the
idea that every citizen in the land might be legally required to carry
some form of identity card in what is not a time of national extremity
or emergency was horrific.
He believed however that the measure would be ineffectual. The notion
the threat of terrorism could be countered by ensuring that every
citizen carried a little card was patently absurd. Hardened terrorists
would circumvent the scheme with ease.
Nor would an ID card scheme have a useful purpose in tackling identity
fraud. However, it would further curtail individuals' liberty to go
about their daily business without fear of interference from the
state. There was a danger that a culture of fear and intimidation will
establish itself at a time when distrust of the police and authorities
is already building in certain communities. A national ID database
will itself be a security risk, not least if the UK Government
accidentally loses the computer disks on which it is held.
The idea of a database of the DNA of those who have committed no crime
was also anathema to me. The suggestion that the state should be
allowed to hold information on the genetic make-up of people who have
committed no crime and done no wrong was outrageous.
Amongst the points raised in discussion afterwards was the intriguing
one of whether the Scottish Parliament could advise police not to ask
people to show cards.
30 January 2008 - Patrick
Harvie MSP (Scottish Green Party)
Mr
Harvie said that his first encounter with ID cards was as a student at
Manchester Metropolitan University, when he had opposed their
introduction; the idea had been dropped. He now had an ID card for
the Scottish Parliament, necessary to gain access and to vote, amongst
other things, but the difference was no-one was obliged to be an MSP;
everyone had a right to a private life without having to justify
themselves to the government.
He condemned the use of swipe cards for school meals with the
intention of hiding who qualified for free meals; the correct
procedure was to eliminate the distinction. He condemned too the
increased use of technology being introduced into schools without
consultation, fingerprinting, airport-style security scanners, etc.
This was inculcating the culture that all were assumed guilty until
proved innocent.
What was the role of the State? In Scotland it had always been the
case that it was the people who were sovereign, not the government or
the head of state. The government was the servant of the people.
There had been a slightly different public reaction in Scotland to
asylum seekers and about rendition flights. He hoped that this would
be true also for ID cards.
The Scottish Parliament had taken a position on ID cards; he would
have wished that it had been stronger. He had been shocked at the
arguments against - the 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' mantra
which he said was vacuous. It would apply equally to the state
opening one's mail, searching one's house without warrant, searching
minority ethnic members of the public without reason. This was already
happening at Glasgow Central station, risking alienation.
He would not be overly concerned about a voluntary ID card which was
not supported by a database. There was no way to know how the
database would be used in future.
The debate on the government/citizen relationship would continue,
whether ID cards were introduced or not. NO2ID had been very helpful
in framing amendments in the Scottish Parliament. Scottish politics
were very interesting at present. Fears that the SNP would
concentrate on promoting independence at the expense of more immediate
matters had not been justified. Rather, there were all-party
discussions on the extent of further devolution. NO2ID should be
taking notice. Let Scotland show the way for the whole UK!
In answers to questions Mr Harvie agreed to pursue concerns over
acquisition of telephone records by various bodies and concerns over
the Scottish National Entitlement Card, originally presented to the
public as a bus pass.