Report - Guardian

More documents

Recommendations

Info

290 The LSE Identity Project <strong>Report</strong>: June 2005Public support28. It may be that citizens will choose to useidentity cards voluntarily on an extensive basis.However, until identity cards are compulsory thereshould be realistic alternatives to their use in everycase. There should also be effective restrictions oninappropriate demands for them. (Paragraph 133)The 'voluntary' stage29. Given the Government's decision to baseidentity cards on passports and driving licences, webelieve the incremental approach to introduction isjustified. We set out our concerns about theimplications of this choice in paragraphs 19-20above. (Paragraph 138)Vulnerable groups30. The effect of the identity card scheme onminorities, such as the elderly, the socially excludedand ethnic groups, is of the utmost importance. TheGovernment should ensure that the scheme imposesno new disadvantages on these groups, and do sobefore it is implemented. (Paragraph 141)The National Identity Register31. We do not ourselves have the expertise to makejudgements on the technical issues involved insetting up a national identity card system, but wehave been struck by witnesses' insistence on theimportance of the Government getting the structureright from the beginning and sticking to itsdecisions. We are concerned that the Government'sapproach has not taken into account the need toensure adequate technical debate and public scrutinyof the design of the system. (Paragraph 144)Architecture of the database32. The structure of the database, and how to set itup and manage it, are among the most importantchoices the Government has to make. We aregreatly concerned that the Government'sprocurement process appears to be taking these keydecisions without any external reference ortechnical assessment, or broader public debate. Werecommend the Government publishes details ofconsultations with any external bodies and also anytechnical assessments that have been undertaken.(Paragraph 147)Access to the database33. A balance needs to be struck between, on theone hand, protecting individuals from unnecessaryaccess by public and private bodies to informationheld on them and, on the other, ensuring that usersof the database have the information they need forthe scheme to fulfil its purposes. Above all, it isimportant that the public should know who may beable to see information about them, and what thatinformation is. (Paragraph 151)Supported by research.Conditionally supported. See 1 above.Supported by research.Supported by research.Supported by research.Supported by research.
The LSE Identity Project <strong>Report</strong>: June 2005 291'Function creep'34. Whatever the merits or otherwise of suchdevelopments [eg. the establishment of a nationalfingerprint register], their potential should berecognised. It is essential that they do not developincrementally or by executive action but are subjectto full Parliamentary scrutiny. These issues are atleast as significant as the decision to make cardscompulsory. (Paragraph 158)35. In a similar way, identity cards are not plannedto be a single card for all public services, but itclearly is possible, and perhaps desirable, for asuccessful identity card scheme to develop in thisdirection. But this should be a decision ofParliament, not of the executive. (Paragraph 159)Information on the database36. The functions of the Register entail establishingan individual's identity in a number of differentcircumstances. For some of these, such asinteraction with local authorities, addresses may benecessary. There is therefore a case for includingthem in the National Identity Register. But to do sowould have significant administrative andoperational consequences, since the Register wouldneed to be updated frequently; the extra work couldlead to mistakes which would be disastrous if notproperly handled. The Government should be moreexplicit about the case for including addresses anddemonstrate that the advantages of doing sooutweigh the problems that would be created. TheGovernment should also clarify whether addresseswould be only on the Register or whether theywould be legible on the surface of the card itself.(Paragraph 163)37. In many parts of Europe, including Sweden andGermany, where there is a requirement to registeraddresses, it is a legal requirement for landlords toregister their tenants. We recommend that this beadopted if the Government decides to includeaddresses, since it would help alleviate the problemof frequent changes of address. (Paragraph 164)38. The nature of the individual number and itsrelationship to other identifying numbers used bythe state are more decisions that are crucial for thedesign and development of the system. TheGovernment must be clear and open about the issuesinvolved and enable informed parliamentary andpublic scrutiny of any decisions (Paragraph 167)Supported by research.Supported by research.Conditionally supported. While there may be ajustification for the requirement to provide orstore addresses, the case for inclusion of this dataon the national register has not been clearlyestablished. Using the national identityregistration number to link to other databasesmay be a more secure and cost effective option.Not supported by research. This requirementwould create a range of additional security andadministrative issues. Tenants would be requiredto disclose their identity card to landlords, and inthe event of loss or failure of the card, may bedenied housing.Supported by research.
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:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
100 The LSE Identity Project Report
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
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: The LSE Identity Project Report: Ju
Page 259: The LSE Identity Project Report: Ju
Page 262 and 263: 248 The LSE Identity Project Report
show all

Report - Guardian

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?