*

Mu-Sly

Digital Audio Science

Against the proposed UK biometric ID system - my letter to John Heppell MP : articles

Against the proposed UK biometric ID system - my letter to John Heppell MP

Posted Friday 1st July 2005

Yesterday, I wrote and posted this letter (clocking in at 3 sides of A4 paper) to John Heppell, who is the MP for Nottingham East where I live.

This is the first time I have ever been so infuriated about an issue that I have written to my MP, and also the first time I have seriously considered civil disobedience and will readily accept the consequences that come with it, because the proposed scheme is so utterly wrong.

I guess the letter does perhaps get a bit heavy at points, but I think I did well to manage not to rant too much - believe me, the temptation was very strong!!

John Heppell is a staunch supporter of this bill, so I know I will have a tough time convincing him to abandon his support for it. I only hope he reads my letter and considers the points I have made. I would like to think that if he truly thinks about the questions I have posed, he will realise that this entire scheme should be scrapped.

I am hoping for a detailed response, and if one arrives, I will certainly post it here.

So without further ado, here's the letter:

John Heppell MP, The House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA

Thursday 30th June 2005

Dear John,

I write to express my very grave concerns over the proposals for biometric identity cards and a National Identity Register in the United Kingdom - proposals that I believe to be fundamentally flawed, and utterly abhorrent.

I do not subscribe to the oft-repeated mantra that "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" - in fact, it is precisely because I am a law abiding citizen with nothing to hide that I take such particular offence at the way in which this bill will treat the people of our country.

Why should the supposedly "free" people of Britain be subject to treatment like criminals and forced to pay for a license to exist in their own country? We have everything to fear, because our government is trying it's very hardest to take away our rights and completely alter the relationship between citizen and state.

May I take this opportunity to remind you that all members of parliament work for the people, and not the other way around. It is not your job to tell us what to do - it is our job to tell you what to do. I feel that over very many issues, the current government have lost track of this mandate entirely, and it is hard to find even the slightest grain of credibility or confidence left for those in power.

Returning to the issue of ID cards, so far, The Labour Party has beaten around the bush a great many times, attempting to justify it's case for them, in what can only be seen as a desperate attempt to clutch at straws and force this legislation through. I have yet to see a single convincing argument in the case for ID cards, let alone an even slightly viable explanation of how the technology will be implemented.

Tackling the technology issues first, I have a 2:1 BSc Hons degree in Computer Science, and have worked in the information technology sector for three years now, primarily with websites and databases. I work with databases every day, and have a strong understanding of database technology, which unfortunately makes me only too aware of it's many pitfalls. The database system proposed will not only be very costly, but is extremely likely to have countless unforeseen security problems. It is simply very unwise to build a system of this magnitude and expect it to work without problems, given that even a small, non-critical database system used by only a handful of people can still suffer from inaccuracies.

As for security of the data, I simply refuse to accept that the way in which this data is stored will be secure to anywhere near the level of security required. I do not believe I exaggerate when I say that the level of security required for such sensitive, personal data, exists only as a pipe dream - your data is only as secure as the weakest link. In this case as with most, the weakest link will be the human element - the fact that to build and maintain such a monolithic database will require a great many staff, and that you cannot possibly be sure that they are all trustworthy.

Ultimately, with such an all encompassing database storing everybody's details, the database will become the "trusted" source of information about somebody's past activities. So I ask you this question:

When the database is both the source and verification of it's own trustworthiness, how can we be sure we can always trust it so explicitly to tell us who is trustworthy to work on it, and who is not?

Data can be altered, and no system is flawless. It will not take much more than a dissident employee to expose the system to much greater dangers, for example by allowing far more dangerous individuals access to the data. The old proverb "don't put all your eggs in one basket" is only too true with databases - to be honest, I am quite shocked that such an unsafe plan is even being discussed, let alone actively pushed for! It illustrates only too well that those in government really do not have much grasp of the technological issues that people such as myself deal with on a daily basis.

The proposed system is so unbelievably far fetched, I consider myself to be doing you a great favour in telling you straight up, right now - it will never, ever work as planned! Furthermore, it will not be completed on time or on budget (few IT projects ever are, even trivial ones, and much less those in the public sector) and will certainly not provide the security that is being used as the primary reason to justify it.

I believe it will actually go so far against good security principles, as to in fact provide a great weakening of the security of this country.

To bring yet another proverb into the argument - "who watches the watcher?" - continue this question infinitely, and you will see that you fast run out of watchers, since each watcher must in turn be watched. Therefore, absolute security for this database is a logical impossibility, since it would require an infinite number of trustworthy watchers to ensure absolutely undeniable integrity.

To re-iterate my point once again: absolute security and integrity of the database is a logical impossibility - it cannot be the case under any circumstances, even given an infinite amount of time or money to implement.

Currently, if some aspect of my life is misrepresented in a government database, the consequences are generally not too catastrophic. In a scenario where you have one point of reference only (the single database, however it is configured or split into multiple layers, ultimately it is a single source) the possibilities for dire consequences are absolutely limitless.

For example, currently if someone wished to steal my identity, they would have to go to great lengths to find out about me from as many sources as possible, whereas under the new system, all my information is in one place, thus weakening security down to only one breach required in order to know everything about me.

This is simply not acceptable, and as a person who has a fairly good understanding of databases and security, I morally cannot allow your government to proceed with such an ill-conceived and dangerous plan. This system, if implemented, will pose a far bigger risk than any of the threats it is purported to protect us from.

However, for the sake of completeness, I would also like to counter the other cases that have been put forward for this system, and show that when subject to scrutiny, they hold very little water.

As I'm sure you are already aware, Spain has had ID cards for a number of years. As was shown by the Madrid train bombings, ID cards do very little to prevent terrorism. If a group or individual is determined to commit such an attack, even more so when the individual does not care for their own safety, such as in the case of a suicide bomber, how will an ID system prevent them carrying out their attack? I submit that it will make no difference, since if you already intend to kill a lot of people, breaking a few ID card laws on the way is hardly a major concern.

As for clamping down on illegal immigration and illegal working, these people are already coming into our country by the back door, and are not being thwarted by any of the current systems (passports, visas, work permits and so on). There are already sufficient laws in place to deal with all these scenarios, but the existing laws are not being fully utilised. What difference will ID cards and the database make in this case, where current laws are already in place, yet flaunted unchecked? Instead of introducing new laws, the current laws could be better enforced. Even with the ID system, the same laws would still need to be enforced, so the ID system ultimately makes no difference. People will still continue to come to the country illegally, and will still continue to work here illegally.

ID cards are supposed to allow us to prove who we are - I would like to know what proof will be required when initially registering for an ID card? I would also like to submit that any proof based on the back of existing proof (such as birth certificate, passport, driving license) can only be as secure as the proof upon which it is based. The fact is, existing documentary proof can be forged, and with enough determination, I believe it would be possible to create false records on the new system too. Given that the new system would be accorded such a high amount of trust and considered to be the final say in someone's identity, just imagine the havoc that could be caused by somebody with a false identity that is considered 100% legitimate. I do not believe you can protect against this fully - once again opening the system up to all manner of dangerous security exploitation by determined criminals, now able to "prove" their bogus identities beyond any shadow of doubt.

In my opinion, ultimately this entire plan boils down to an extremely expensive, ineffective, infeasible scheme, providing little or no discernible benefit to the public. It will cost us directly in very many ways - financially, and with the erosion of our rights and civil liberties. More worryingly, the damage to our rights destroys the freedom we are supposedly trying to preserve, serving only to cut off our nose to spite our face. Surely it is better to be killed in a free country than live in a police state? Giving away our freedom in order to protect our freedom is illogical at best!

On a personal level, I simply cannot and will not take part in such a scheme. As a decent, law abiding citizen, I find it extremely worrying that I potentially face a 2,500 fine simply for my political ideals, and standing up for my freedom. If I refuse to pay this fine, what next? Am I to be sent to prison for trying to protect my rights? If so, then you will be making political prisoners out of a very large number of otherwise upstanding citizens. If you don't intend to send us to prison, then what alternatives do you have, short of strapping us down while you scan our retinas and fingerprints? I will use non-violent resistance against this scheme for as long as possible, and am prepared for the consequences, since the alternative (living under "Big Brother") is of equal repulsiveness as living in prison. I know for a fact I am not the only person who feels this way, and can guarantee you a very tough battle all the way to making this legislation a reality.

I fear that everything this country stands for is being taken to hell in a handcart by an out of control government, completely out of touch with the real wishes of it's people, and dangerously lacking in any accountability for it's actions.

Therefore Mr. Heppell, I request that you immediately cease your support for this scheme, and seek to actively encourage your fellow party members to do the same. To continue this folly any longer will only serve to further harm the government's popularity in the long term, and ultimately damage our society and way of life very severely.

I trust you will consider the points I have made in this letter, and I look forward to receiving your reply.

Yours sincerely,

David J. Silvester

Related links:

More Articles:

 
*