ID Cards and the moral battlefield

For those opposed to the ID card scheme, it is easy to see the silver lining to the recent news that the taxman has lost 25 million records in the post. While the disappearance of these CDs causes grave concern for the people who’s data has gone missing, the incompetence does undermine the case for ID Cards: “We cannot afford a similar error on the national ID database,” (the argument goes) “… so, lets scrap the scheme”. Tactically, yes, I think it is an argument we in the anti-ID card lobby should be making loudly… but let us never forget that the administration of the system is a practical reason to oppose the scheme, and not a moral or ideological reason. Even if (in some thought experiment world, some Cloud Number 10) the government could 100% guarantee the security of the data, I would still be opposed to the scheme, because the political relationship between citizen and state does not change when the State buys a better computer system. Nor, for that matter, would it change if the cost of the scheme were to rise or fall. Brighton blogger Neil Harding recently changed his mind on ID cards, based on these practical reasons. While his interlocutors crowed at his volte-face, it seemed an empty victory to me. The moral argument was sidelined.

This matters, because arguments for ID cards seem to be made up exclusively of practical reasons. Advocates in Government and the security services play down the costs, and instead cite ‘convenience’ and ‘efficiency’. The moral aspect to their argument – that the cards will offer a measure of safety from terror and crime – is unproven and untested, and has the unmistakeable allure of the post hoc about it.

Meanwhile, here in the anti-camp, the opposite is true. The moral resistance to any change in the relationship between individual and state is conceptually prior to, and transcends, the concern over costs or data-security. If we successfully communicate this to our fellow citizens, we shall win the debate.

3 thoughts on “ID Cards and the moral battlefield”

  1. I have to say, that while I’ve discussed the pragmatic issues, it is the moral one that rankles most deeply with me. I own my identity and no one has the moral authority to take it from me; law or no law.

  2. Saw this up on Liberal Conspiracy, and then it was gone… ?

    Anyway, a central database of biometric data does, as you’ve said, change the relationship between citizen and state. A fundamental ‘trust’ is lost when trust is no longer required.

    “If you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to worry about” has long been the argument of those in favour. Privacy is a right however, not a privilege. When instead of not needing to ‘hide’ because you’ve done nothing wrong, you instead are kept under the spotlight of checks, searches and profiling – your government becomes your keeper.

    I don’t believe we’re becoming a police state. However, when that fundamental trust in the everyday citizen is lost – *that* is when you take your first step towards becoming one.

  3. It doesn’t change the relationship it just formalises it. Given that our government is already the fondest in the world of filming and tracking it’s citizens I can’t believe anyone still thinks they “own” their identity.
    The liberal left made the introduction of ID cards inevitable and are now having a collective panic attack because they hold a mirror up their beloved overbearing, nannnying, interfering state. Looking forward to ID cards as it might finally make people realise that the state has long had an unhealthy interst in things that are none of its business. My fear is that realisation will come too late

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *