Report - Guardian

More documents

Recommendations

Info

114 The LSE Identity Project Report: June 2005At a meeting at the Law Society in 2004, Stephen Harrison, the policy head of theIdentity Cards team at the Home Office, was asked whether ID cards are alien to ourculture and our traditions. Mr Harrison conceded that they may have been at the turn ofthe century, but the Government believes that times are changing and that people shouldchange with them. 299 This debate is not likely to lead to a consensual solution.It is more important, and more relevant, to understand the form of changes beingintroduced to Britain's methods of policing. As ID cards are promoted for use incombating fraud and illegal immigration, and to permit the police to gain access to thenational identity register, we must consider the effects of these powers and measures onthe practice of law enforcement.This section questions the effects that the cards, as with other technologies, have onpolicing in the United Kingdom. It is not necessarily the case that advances intechnology always lead to an advance in the efficiency of the UK’s law enforcementagencies.Demands from the PoliceAssertions that identity cards would be a useful tool for policing have received littlesupport or substantive backing by academic or law enforcement bodies. During debatesin the mid-1990's over the proposed introduction of an identity card, the Association ofChief Police Officers (ACPO) said that, while it is in favour of a voluntary system, itsmembers would be reluctant to administer a compulsory card that might damage goodrelations with the public.According to police organisations, most economically developed countries find that themajor problem in combating crime is not lack of identification procedures, butdifficulties in the gathering of evidence and the pursuit of a prosecution. Indeed, fewpolice or criminologists have been able to advance any evidence whatever that theexistence of a card would reduce the incidence of crime, or enhance the success ofprosecution. In a 1993 report, ACPO suggested that street crime, burglaries and crimesby bogus officials could be diminished through the use of an ID card, although this wasin conflict with its position that the card should be voluntary.Support along these lines for the introduction of cards is also predicated on theassumption that they will establish a means of improving public order by making peopleaware that they are in some way being observed. Sometimes, cards are proposed as ameans of reducing the opportunity for crime. In 1989, the UK government moved tointroduce machine-readable ID cards to combat problems of violence and hooliganismat football grounds. The premise was that cards would authorise the bearer to entercertain grounds and certain locations, but not others. The card could also be cancelled ifthe bearer was involved in any trouble at a ground or related area. The proposal wasscrapped following a report by the Lord Chief Justice that claimed that such a schemecould increase the danger of disorder and loss of life in the event of a catastrophe at aground.299 ‘IDENTITY CARDS: BENEFIT OR BURDEN?’, The Law Society, Monday 22 March 2004, Report of theDebate.
The LSE Identity Project Report: June 2005 115One unintended repercussion of ID card systems is that they can entrench wide-scalecriminal false identity. By providing a one-stop form of identity, criminals can easilyuse cards in several identities. Even the highest integrity bankcards are available asblanks in such countries as Singapore for several pounds. Within two months of theissue of new Commonwealth Bank high security hologram cards in Australia, nearperfectforgeries were already in circulation.Even the police agree with this assessment and recognise the potential for forgery andfraud within an ID system. According to ACPO:“It should be recognised that whatever scheme is introduced acriminal somewhere will try to find a way around, or through, it.Therefore there will have to be a system of continual monitoring andreview to adapt and change procedures where necessary.” 300This conundrum has been debated throughout the world. It is based on the simple logicthat the higher an ID card’s value, the more it will be used. The more an ID card is used,the greater the value placed upon it and, consequently, the higher its value to criminalelements.The potential for forgery and fraud is one of the most persuasive arguments againstidentity cards in the United States. There is considerable concern over the problem ofidentity theft, but many observers believe that the centralization of personal informationwould increase the risk of identity theft, fraud and the use of personal data by organisedcrime.There appears to be a powerful retributive thread running along the law and orderargument. Some people are frustrated by what they see as the failure of the justicesystem to deal with offenders, and the ID card is seen, at the very least, as having anirritant value.It is impossible to provide a comparative assessment that would link the existence of anational identity card with the overall level of crime in each country. It is, however,possible to draw certain inferences by assessing crime trends across Europe.300 ACPO memorandum to the House of Commons - Home Affairs - Written Evidence, April 2004,http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmhaff/130/130we02.htm
Page 1:
The Identity Projectan assessment o
Page 5 and 6:
The LSE Identity Project Report: Ju
Page 7:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15:
Page 19:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33:
Page 36 and 37:
22 The LSE Identity Project Report:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79: 64 The LSE Identity Project Report:
Page 114 and 115: 100 The LSE Identity Project Report
Page 127: The LSE Identity Project Report: Ju
Page 131 and 132: The LSE Identity Project Report: Ju
Page 157: The LSE Identity Project Report: Ju
Page 178 and 179:
164 The LSE Identity Project Report
Page 180 and 181:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317:
show all

Report - Guardian

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?