| Revision as of 20:20, 20 January 2004 view sourceTrevor mendham (talk | contribs)77 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:27, 20 January 2004 view source Trevor mendham (talk | contribs)77 editsm Added some balancing pointsNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| == Arguments for and against identity cards == | == Arguments for and against identity cards == | ||
| State-issued identity cards are a source of great controversy. Some people regard them as a gross infringement of ] and ], whilst others regard them as uncontroversial. | State-issued compulsory identity cards are a source of great controversy. Some people regard them as a gross infringement of ] and ], whilst others regard them as uncontroversial. | ||
| Opponents of identity cards point out that ] governments issue identity cards to their populations, and that they have been used oppressively by many governments. They point out that the issuing of unique biometric identities was taken to its logical conclusion within living memory by the Nazis, when they ] unique KZ- numbers on the arms of people taken to be processed by the ]. (see ]). | Opponents of identity cards point out that ] governments issue identity cards to their populations, and that they have been used oppressively by many governments. They point out that the issuing of unique biometric identities was taken to its logical conclusion within living memory by the Nazis, when they ] unique KZ- numbers on the arms of people taken to be processed by the ]. (see ]). | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| (See ]). | (See ]). | ||
| Proponents of identity cards regard these criticisms as paranoid, and regard identity cards to be a useful administrative tool that will increase government efficiency and cut down on crime. They use an argument which is often deployed against privacy advocates: "if you are against it, then you must have something to hide". | Proponents of compulsory identity cards regard these criticisms as paranoid, and regard identity cards to be a useful administrative tool that will increase government efficiency and cut down on crime. They use an argument which is often deployed against privacy advocates: "if you are against it, then you must have something to hide". This simplistic argument is easily defeated . | ||
| Supporters of compulsory ID Cards also point that if the State doesn't issue identity cards, private companies will require equivalent documents such as the driver license which are not totally suited for identity purposes. | |||
| ⚫ | A properly designed state-run card system enables easier and cleaner identification among private instances. | ||
| ⚫ | A properly designed and implemented state-run card system enables easier and cleaner identification among private instances. A badly designed and implemented system will be worse than useless. | ||
| Some opponents have characterised vocal proponents of identity cards as social conservatives who wish to control the population tightly. They point out that extensive lobbying for identity cards has been undertaken in countries without compulsory identity cards by IT companies who will be likely to reap rich rewards in the event of an identity card scheme being implemented. | Some opponents have characterised vocal proponents of identity cards as social conservatives who wish to control the population tightly. They point out that extensive lobbying for identity cards has been undertaken in countries without compulsory identity cards by IT companies who will be likely to reap rich rewards in the event of an identity card scheme being implemented. | ||
| Line 31: | Line 33: | ||
| Economic and social liberals generally regard identity cards as a bad thing, on the principle that if society already works adequately without them, they should not be imposed by government, on the principle that "the government that governs best, governs least". | Economic and social liberals generally regard identity cards as a bad thing, on the principle that if society already works adequately without them, they should not be imposed by government, on the principle that "the government that governs best, governs least". | ||
| Some |
Some nations require the card to be carried "at all times". | ||
| This is often impractical and can lead to arbitrary requests from card controllers (such as ]). Even where there is no legal requirement to carry the card, ] can quickly lead to ] compulsion to carry. | |||
| This is often impractical. | |||
| In practice, this can lead to arbitrary requests from card controllers (such as police). | |||
| == Identity cards in Britain == | == Identity cards in Britain == | ||
Revision as of 20:27, 20 January 2004
An identity document is a piece of documentation designed to prove the identity of the person carrying it. Unlike other forms of documentation, which only have a single purpose such as authorizing bank transactions, or proving membership of a library, an identity document simply asserts the bearer's identity. If an identity document is in the form of a small standard-sized card, such as an ISO 7810 card, it is called an identity card.
Modern Identity Cards bear little resemblance to the traditional "photograph on piece of cardboard" and are often hi-tech smartcards capable of being swiped and read by computer.
Where the identity card is issued by the State, it asserts a unique single civil identity for a person, thus defining that person's identity purely in relation to the State. New technologies allow identity cards to contain biometric information, such as photographs, face, hand or iris measurements, or fingerprints.
Other information typically present on the cards - or on the supporting database - includes full name, parents' names, address, profession, nationality in multinational states, blood type and Rh-factor.
Laws usually limit who is authorized to require an identification (for example limiting it to police, immigration officers, etc), though practice usually broadens the range to many civil functionaries, for example when paying with a credit card. This can lead to functionality creep whereby carrying a card becomes de facto if not de jure compulsory.
In many cases, other forms of documentation such as a driver's license, passport, or medicare card serve a similar function, identifying the bearer in a variety of contexts. However, possession of these documents is typically optional from a legal point of view.
Not carrying an required identity card can be beneficial for people who wish to avoid detection (such illegal immigrants) as well as innocent citizens who value their privacy.
In some countries like Spain, if their identity, age or citizenship cannot be ascertained, laws on foreigners may give them a longer term for pleading or staying, compared to adult nationals of states like Morocco, that have signed fast repatriation agreements.
Arguments for and against identity cards
State-issued compulsory identity cards are a source of great controversy. Some people regard them as a gross infringement of privacy and civil liberties, whilst others regard them as uncontroversial.
Opponents of identity cards point out that totalitarian governments issue identity cards to their populations, and that they have been used oppressively by many governments. They point out that the issuing of unique biometric identities was taken to its logical conclusion within living memory by the Nazis, when they tattooed unique KZ- numbers on the arms of people taken to be processed by the Final Solution. (see ka-tzetnik). More recently, the apartheid-era government of South Africa used identity cards as internal passports to oppress that country's population. (See freedom of movement).
Proponents of compulsory identity cards regard these criticisms as paranoid, and regard identity cards to be a useful administrative tool that will increase government efficiency and cut down on crime. They use an argument which is often deployed against privacy advocates: "if you are against it, then you must have something to hide". This simplistic argument is easily defeated .
Supporters of compulsory ID Cards also point that if the State doesn't issue identity cards, private companies will require equivalent documents such as the driver license which are not totally suited for identity purposes.
A properly designed and implemented state-run card system enables easier and cleaner identification among private instances. A badly designed and implemented system will be worse than useless.
Some opponents have characterised vocal proponents of identity cards as social conservatives who wish to control the population tightly. They point out that extensive lobbying for identity cards has been undertaken in countries without compulsory identity cards by IT companies who will be likely to reap rich rewards in the event of an identity card scheme being implemented.
Economic and social liberals generally regard identity cards as a bad thing, on the principle that if society already works adequately without them, they should not be imposed by government, on the principle that "the government that governs best, governs least".
Some nations require the card to be carried "at all times". This is often impractical and can lead to arbitrary requests from card controllers (such as police). Even where there is no legal requirement to carry the card, functionality creep can quickly lead to de facto compulsion to carry.
Identity cards in Britain
Compulsory identity cards were first issued in the United Kingdom during World War I, and abandoned in 1919. They were re-introduced in World War II, but were abandoned seven years after the end of that war in 1952, due to widespread public resentment.
Nevertheless, in 2003 the Home Secretary David Blunkett has recently stated that the British government intends to introduce a national identity card scheme based on biometric technology, to be made compulsory by 2013. This has met with significant opposition. The announcement followed a public "consultation" where the government ignored the overwhelming majority of those replying who had stated that they did not want national identity cards. The government claimed that negative online responses represented one lobby group so treated them as one reply.
Identity cards in the United States
Identity cards worldwide
According to Privacy International, as of 1996, around 100 countries had compulsory identity cards. They also stated that "virtually no common law country has a card".
For the people of Western Sahara, pre-1975 Spanish cards are the main proof that they were Saharaui citizens as opposed to recent Moroccan colonists. They would be thus allowed to vote in an eventual self-determination referendum.
Countries with compulsory (the minimum age may vary) identity cards
Countries without compulsory identity cards
See also: passport, pass book, visa, Social security number, census.