I think there are two main strands of argument in the UK. The first is deep-rooted English bloody-mindedness liberalism. During WWII they did have to have papers and that actually survived for some years after (standard bit of cardboard I think). I can't remember the details but I think the "why the hell should I have to prove who I am" argument came to a head when a liberal MP refused to produce his ID when requested by the police. That was in the 50s or 60s (?, anyone feel like googling?). In the end this argument comes down to a higher status being placed on personal privacy and the liberty of the individual from the state in countries based on Anglo-Saxon constitutional/philosophical/legal principles than in those based on Roman Law/Code Napoleon/etc. It's for the state to justify why.
Time has indeed moved on, we all carry bits of plastic all the time. But it's actually quite rare, historically, to have to prove identity in this country, and when you do you use paperwork created for other purposes: utility bills and the like.
The second strand is (1) the doubt about how clean the data will be. In the end, all a card proves (subject to arguments about encoding biometric data) is that you are claiming to be the person whose name is on the card. (2) the doubts about bleeding data -the life insurance firm getting their hands on the medical data, for instance, or credit ref agencies. (3) the historic overspends and failures of almost every major government IT project of the last ten years. (4) what real benefit is there? The 11 September highjackers all had papers.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: is it because
Date: 2004-12-16 12:38 pm (UTC)bloody-mindednessliberalism. During WWII they did have to have papers and that actually survived for some years after (standard bit of cardboard I think). I can't remember the details but I think the "why the hell should I have to prove who I am" argument came to a head when a liberal MP refused to produce his ID when requested by the police. That was in the 50s or 60s (?, anyone feel like googling?). In the end this argument comes down to a higher status being placed on personal privacy and the liberty of the individual from the state in countries based on Anglo-Saxon constitutional/philosophical/legal principles than in those based on Roman Law/Code Napoleon/etc. It's for the state to justify why.Time has indeed moved on, we all carry bits of plastic all the time. But it's actually quite rare, historically, to have to prove identity in this country, and when you do you use paperwork created for other purposes: utility bills and the like.
The second strand is (1) the doubt about how clean the data will be. In the end, all a card proves (subject to arguments about encoding biometric data) is that you are claiming to be the person whose name is on the card. (2) the doubts about bleeding data -the life insurance firm getting their hands on the medical data, for instance, or credit ref agencies. (3) the historic overspends and failures of almost every major government IT project of the last ten years. (4) what real benefit is there? The 11 September highjackers all had papers.