Liadnan

Intriguing article in El Reg picking up on a story in the Observer that people around Gordon Brown are seriously floating what has been thought of as the paranoid nightmare of ID cards: ultimate function creep whereby every electronic transaction in the UK would be linked to ID - and thence to loyalty card schemes.

With any luck this will be what kills the whole idea.

Two minor placeholders of interest: Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LibDem peer, not to be confused with Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, now LCJ) on ID Card Bill amendments (via Nosemonkey):

"The amendment to be debated today will tap into cross-chamber insistence that resisting calls for estimates of the full costs of such a massive initiative not only prevents proper scrutiny but aborts discussion of alternatives. It also seems to be unprecedented. The Home Office minister Baroness Scotland tried to justify the intransigence on the grounds of commercial secrecy during the tendering process. Besides wondering at the presumption of embarking on tenders long before the bill is through, to think that commercial convenience trumps parliament's right to know is a baleful reflection on our democratic ill-health.

Although the government seeks to pretend otherwise, our ID card project is uniquely vast, complex and intrusive. It risks outscandalising the Eurofighter, the Millennium Dome, the Scottish parliament, the driving licence and NHS computer projects and a host of other less daunting cock-ups. No other nation has essayed a single central database with a file on every citizen over 15.

ETA: and the Lords have indeed put a spanner in the works. Good. I would very much like to see the costing for a start.

And, entirely unconnected, Michael Barrymore is likely to be served with a private prosecution on CBB. Worth noting that the "former solicitor" (and note the former there) is a known nutjob, once described by Nigel Farrage of UKIP (with whom he shares political views) as "eccentric".

ETA: the BBC story has been updated and indicates that Bennett has now delivered the papers to the producers for service. So it may very well be a case of "would Michael please come to the diary room...."

Incidentally, it's vaguely irritating when you link to a BBC story at some time and it's later altered under the same URL, either because of the story developing or because of some error. I can understand why from their point of view they do it, but there should be some way of archiving what the story said at first.

ETFA: This gets better. I am informed, though no link as yet, that the update to the BBC story is incorrect and Channel 4 are refusing to accept service on Barrymore's behalf. Since he has lawyers acting for him, and a known normal residential address I don't see why they can't serve there. Can't be that they really want to serve on prime time television, surely?

Nosemonkey rounds up Bennett's CV here