Government lose yet more information shocker!

Well, OK, it is not shock at all is it?

This time the missing information was on a computer stolen from Hazel Blears constituency office in Salford. Thing is though that the information on terrorism and extremists should never have been on that computer in the first place as it should not have left her ministry.

So this ridiculously lax attitude to sensitive data goes right to the top. Fantastic. ID cards anyone?

The BBC has this.

More personal data "lost", this time in the NHS

More data has been lost, this time in the NHS.

This indicates a systematic disregard across government for our data. What is worse is that it infects some parts of the private sector as well.

It is clear that this government can't be trusted with out data.

ID cards must be dead in the water now, surely?

The BBC has this.

Bank Chiefs deny delaying blunder announcement

One of the reasons why the government alleges it delayed the announcement of the child benefit data going missing is that "the banks had to get ready".

The Times reports on page three of this article as follows:

Last night bankers reacted angrily to a suggestion by Mr Darling that he had delayed his announcement because the financial sector was “adamant” it needed time to prepare. A senior City source said: “By 9.30 on Monday we were ready to run. It is hard to fathom why any suggestion was made that any delay was down to us.”

So someone somewhere is telling porkies, and it is not the bankers. They need to resign.

It does get worse though. According to this report they helpfully put the password on a compliment slip in the same envelope in some cases, removing the need for either a brute force attack or any other hacking method. Nice. The police are also looking at several other offences that staff wish to be taken into account.

It is clear this is not the fault of one junior official but a systematic practice which started when Brown was chancellor.

What a plonker!

The Telegraph has this over how the government was warned this would happen, whilst the Guardian has this on how this affects ID cards.

As a point of note ministers pop up with the untruth (for it to be a lie, they would have to have a clue what the truth is, and they don't) that our ID card data will be protected by bio metrics. Laughable. The fact is that government staff will be able to access your data without you having to unlock it, and on this lots form will be able to download the lot of it to disc and walk out with it.

Useless bunch.

Government loses yet more private data and still wants ID cards?

The Inland Revenue and Customs, the sub department of the Treasury dumped together in a rushed ill thought out merger has lost the details of 15 million child benefit claimants, which will include just about all the information needed for ID theft on a grand scale.

The Chairman of Revenue and Customs, Paul Gray has resigned.

Ministers have apparently been aware of this breach for some 10 days, but as yet they have not seen fit to tell any of us until today. Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is due to make a second uncomfortable statement in the House of Commons later.

What is unbelievable is that this bunch expect us to let them collect all our personal information in one place. Do they seriously expect to be trusted with that?

The BBC has this on the lost records and this on Paul Gray's resignation.

The Government is listening!

Apparently to your every phone call.

Yesterday's Mail on Sunday carried the story that the government has passed legislation that requires telephone companies and Internet service providers to keep records of when and where telephone conversations and emails were sent. This will include tracking data on where mobile phones are.

This information is to be made available to all and sundry in government from NHS trusts to local councils.

There will apparently be safeguards. These wont actually work, because the current ones certainly don't. As I highlighted in this article there is current concern over the way state databases are used to locate errant family members in to commit so called "honour killings". The same information can and is used by criminal gangs.

So to the asinine statement "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" there are two responses. The first is that what ever the state monitoring that is brought in, the fear is what a different state would do with it, and then there is the query over what other people will use it for?

This can and does happen. Now. This is not some theoretical risk.

Insidious infiltration

I regularly read Dizzy Thinks, who had this article linking to this article in the Daily Mail (well, it could have been the Mail on Sunday) about how there are 8 "Al Qaeda" "sleepers" or sympathisers on the police.

Well, it has to be said this is to be expected. They are not stupid and this sort of thing, or rather attempts at doing this sort of thing are to be expected. The shock is, it seems to me that there are not systems to vet applicants so that this does not happen.

What concerns me more, because it is less easy to spot and is not yet high on the agenda is the way state officials from some communities are playing a part in "honour" killings by looking people up on state databases or indeed bank and other systems to tell families where their "errant" offspring" are.

I heard that on an edition of BBC Radio 4's File on 4 program on honour killings. We all have unique identification numbers of one form or another whether it is a National Insurance number or bank account or credit card number. These are all stored in databases accessed by a variety of members of staff. All any community needs, and often in the case of honour killings many members of the community are in support of them, is someone on "the inside" and then if the said child uses their credit card, national Insurance number or notifies a change of address and then they know where they are.

Yet this government wants to ignore that problem but create an over arching database that will allow any criminal gang access to the data they need to track down anyone they want as long as they have someone one "the inside".

Scary isn't it?

Hacking TK Maxx

TK Maxx has been "hacked", 45 million customers have had their credit card details stolen over a period of time.

The BBC has this here.

The security breach raises two questions. The first is one of how sensitive data is stored by organisations, the second is do they actually need to retain this information?

Both commercial organisations and government need to realise that if data is held then people will try and hack the data. The more data you have and the more complete it is the more valuable the prize.

In short one big ID card database is a very very bad idea.

ID cards Tony Blair is not listening

But he is emailing his propaganda to any one who signed the anti ID cards petition! Well, here it is, with my comments in between:

The petition calling for the Government to abandon plans for a National ID Scheme attracted almost 28,000 signatures - one of the largest responses since this e-petition service was set up. So I thought I would reply personally to those who signed up, to explain why the Government believes National ID cards, and the National Identity Register needed to make them effective, will help make Britain a safer place.

So bugger off, we don't care what you think, here is what you should believe.

The petition disputes the idea that ID cards will help reduce crime or terrorism. While I certainly accept that ID cards will not prevent all terrorist outrages or crime, I believe they will make an important contribution to making our borders more secure, countering fraud, and tackling international crime and terrorism. More importantly, this is also what our security services - who have the task of protecting this country - believe.

Right, so it won't prevent all crime or terrorism, but it might help. What is more, I can show you a dossier I downloaded of the Internet which will be about as believable as Iraq having WMD. The problem is this, the security services may or may not think ID cards would be a good idea. To some extent they always have. Ever since Winston Churchill scrapped ID cards they have wanted them back.


In any case how is it going to make our borders more secure? We don't monitor them all the time in any case, people can and do get in via unauthorised entry points in any case. If securing the borders is the intent then surely we need a border police force rather than ID cards?

So I would like to explain why I think it would be foolish to ignore the opportunity to use biometrics such as fingerprints to secure our identities. I would also like to discuss some of the claims about costs - particularly the way the cost of an ID card is often inflated by including in estimates the cost of a biometric passport which, it seems certain, all those who want to travel abroad will soon need.

I see. So if I disagree with you I am foolish. How nice.

In contrast to these exaggerated figures, the real benefits for our country and its citizens from ID cards and the National Identity Register, which will contain less information on individuals than the data collected by the average store card, should be delivered for a cost of around £3 a year over its ten-year life.

Loyalty cards are not compulsory, and neither is the data captured used by an agency which can remove your liberty. By the way, is the £3 per year a commitment? Does it include for dodgy chips?

But first, it's important to set out why we need to do more to secure our identities and how I believe ID cards will help. We live in a world in which people, money and information are more mobile than ever before. Terrorists and international criminal gangs increasingly exploit this to move undetected across borders and to disappear within countries. Terrorists routinely use multiple identities - up to 50 at a time. Indeed this is an essential part of the way they operate and is specifically taught at Al-Qaeda training camps. One in four criminals also uses a false identity. ID cards which contain biometric recognition details and which are linked to a National Identity Register will make this much more difficult.

Firstly, Tony, you should not start a sentence with 'But" let alone a paragraph, it's lazy. Secondly the ease of ID theft has more to do with people not having open fires on which to burn sensitive documents, and just putting them in the rubbish than anything else. Other culprits are the ease with which people can obtain credit on the Internet or via post without having to turn up anywhere. It is difficult to see how ID cards will fix either of these problems, as the person, ID card and vendor will not be in the same place, let alone have the equipment to verify the ID even if they were. What is more, you do not need ID cards to solve this problem, you just need to make it a requirement that credit should be applied for in person, which is what you would have to do to verify ID with a card in any case.

Criminal gangs and terrorists move undetected across borders, not because of a lack of ID, but because we have little control over our own borders. (See above). As for criminal gangs and terrorists using multiple identities, you would have to get them in a position to verify their ID in any case. Given the state of the borders, there seems little point in doing that until the borders are secure, which would be a better use of the money.

Secure identities will also help us counter the fast-growing problem of identity fraud. This already costs £1.7 billion annually. There is no doubt that building yourself a new and false identity is all too easy at the moment. Forging an ID card and matching biometric record will be much harder.

No it won't. Either you don't understand how ID theft currently occurs or you are just plain lying. As above, ID theft happens because of lax checks on ID and people getting services in someone elses name without having to attend with any ID what so ever. What a national identity register will do is provide a single point where ID data can be mined if a criminal gang can get people on the inside (as they have done in call centers) or some pratt walks out with all the data on a laptop as has also happened for it to be stolen.

I also believe that the National Identity Register will help police bring those guilty of serious crimes to justice. They will be able, for example, to compare the fingerprints found at the scene of some 900,000 unsolved crimes against the information held on the register. Another benefit from biometric technology will be to improve the flow of information between countries on the identity of offenders.

I see, we are all to be potential criminals are we? Usually the police have to have reason to suspect an individual before they can acquire this sort of information. We are all to be suspects now. The Guardian has this on the subject, whilst the BBC has this. People say "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear." It is a trite statement, it is also rubbish. Whilst we may all be happy that what is now criminal behaviour should be, what if we have a government that makes protesting against government policy illegal? Think I am mad? Well now you can't do that without police permission in many places already.

The National Identity Register will also help improve protection for the vulnerable, enabling more effective and quicker checks on those seeking to work, for example, with children. It should make it much more difficult, as has happened tragically in the past, for people to slip through the net.

Sorry, this is just more spurious nonsense. The sex offenders register is supposed to deal with this problem, and any failings in the system have been procedural, rather than something to do with false identity. Again, the money to be spent on on ID cards would be better spent fixing the actual problem rather than parading ID cards as a solution to all ills.

Proper identity management and ID cards also have an important role to play in preventing illegal immigration and illegal working. The effectiveness on the new biometric technology is, in fact, already being seen. In trials using this technology on visa applications at just nine overseas posts, our officials have already uncovered 1,400 people trying illegally to get back into the UK.

There are other checks diligent employers are required to use to make sure they do not employ illegal immigrants, and those who do wish to employ illegal immigrants do so on the black market already, and are unlikely to stop unless caught. I can't imagine them wanting to check any ones ID any way. That is an argument for biometric passports, not ID cards, but again, how about securing the borders? Would that not be better? In any case it will not prevent illegal working unless it is a requirement for all employers to have the relevant equipment to check peoples ID cards prior to employment.

Nor is Britain alone in believing that biometrics offer a massive opportunity to secure our identities. Firms across the world are already using fingerprint or iris recognition for their staff. France, Italy and Spain are among other European countries already planning to add biometrics to their ID cards. Over 50 countries across the world are developing biometric passports, and all EU countries are proposing to include fingerprint biometrics on their passports. The introduction in 2006 of British e-passports incorporating facial image biometrics has meant that British passport holders can continue to visit the United States without a visa. What the National Identity Scheme does is take this opportunity to ensure we maximise the benefits to the UK.

I think there is a large misunderstanding of why commercial companies use biometrics for access to systems going on here. The issue large firms face is that your average computer user is a fool, who can't remember a secure password without writing it down for all to see. So if you have large amounts of valuable or sensitive data, and a lot of employees it makes sense to give them a way of getting into the system that they is not obvious (like someones first name as a password) or written down. Other countries that already have ID cards may be looking to have biometrics on them, but that is no argument for ID cards. The fact that passports may or may not need biometric data is a completely different issue as well.

These then are the ways I believe ID cards can help cut crime and terrorism. I recognise that these arguments will not convince those who oppose a National Identity Scheme on civil liberty grounds. They will, I hope, be reassured by the strict safeguards now in place on the data held on the register and the right for each individual to check it. But I hope it might make those who believe ID cards will be ineffective reconsider their opposition.

grounds. I have dealt with all the I see. Well, I oppose ID cards and the National Identity register on both civil liberties grounds AND practical grounds, and frankly the argument for them in practical terms is weak. I have dealt with the alleged 'fors' above. Also I have no confidence in the supposed safeguards as there already appears to be mission creep for the scheme. Let is be clear, ID cards will not solve the problems that Tony Blair claims they will. In fact so far, this is about the biggest non argument for ID cards I have heard. Note to Tony, must try harder, some of us aren't stupid.

If national ID cards do help us counter crime and terrorism, it is, of course, the law-abiding majority who will benefit and whose own liberties will be protected. This helps explain why, according to the recent authoritative Social Attitudes survey, the majority of people favour compulsory ID cards.

The majority of people favour hanging as well. Not much of an argument is it? Besides which the majority of people have not had to cope with ID cards yet, nor have they heard the arguments against. In any case the argument that it protects the liberty of the many is spurious. It doesn't. It makes us all suspects for a start.

I am also convinced that there will also be other positive benefits. A national ID card system, for example, will prevent the need, as now, to take a whole range of documents to establish our identity. Over time, they will also help improve access to services.

Firstly this is mission creep, secondly a lot of people get access to services without any ID over the internet already, which leads to the problem of ID fraud. If we are talking about government services, I can't think of many I have had access to requiring numerous forms of ID anyway.

The petition also talks about cost. It is true that individuals will have to pay a fee to meet the cost of their ID card in the same way, for example, as they now do for their passports. But I simply don't recognise most claims of the cost of ID cards. In many cases, these estimates deliberately exaggerate the cost of ID cards by adding in the cost of biometric passports. This is both unfair and inaccurate.

The difference between ID cards and passports is that I don't have to have a passport to live here. You have always had to pay for passports, you have not always had to pay to live here. Tony may not recognise the figures involved, but then the actual costs involved are not released as they are shrouded in "commericial confidentiallity", so no one can scrutinise the figures.

As I have said, it is clear that if we want to travel abroad, we will soon have no choice but to have a biometric passport. We estimate that the cost of biometric passports will account for 70% of the cost of the combined passports/id cards. The additional cost of the ID cards is expected to be less than £30 or £3 a year for their 10-year lifespan. Our aim is to ensure we also make the most of the benefits these biometric advances bring within our borders and in our everyday lives.

That is an argument for biometric passports, not ID cards. The costs argument is dealt with above.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Blair

I don't find any of your arguments sincere at all I am afraid.

You can view the petition here, which got 27, 985 signatures. I will be fisking the road pricing response later.

And they want us to trust them with ID cards?

The Department of Work and Pensions has apologised for sending personal details, including banking details of 26,000 pensioners to the wrong people. (See the BBC report here)

The Home Office is in meltdown with on fiasco following another, (See here) and these people think we ought to trust them with some of our most sensitive data!

Incredible.

Conservatives to scrap ID card scheme!

David Davis, Conservative Shadow Home Secretary has announced that the next Conservative government will scrap the ID card scheme immediately.

With that in mind David Davis has written to Sir Gus O'Donnell making our position clear, and also asked what provision is being made for the scheme being scrapped early, and pointing out the obligation not to waste public money.

Fantastic. Many will have noticed that I am against the scheme as I have a No2ID banner on my blog!

Also it will be interesting to see how the civil service reacts to being put on such notice.

You can read more on the Conservative party website here.

Hat tip to Iain Dale who has this here and Guido who has this here.