Identity Cards Bill passed Third Reading in Commons

[muriel_volestrangler]

Rather lost in the Tory leader election, the Bill went through, with 25 Labour MPs rebelling (and only the single Ulster Unionist MP siding with Labour from other parties. Yes, even Paisley's lot voted against it - though whether that was for proper reasons, or just to annoy Blair, I'm not sure).

A list of the honourable Labour MPs who rebelled here:

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2005-10-18&number=60

[Briar]

1. Once again

we must look to the Lords to protect our democracy! What a crazy system!

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

2. Depressingly unsuprising

Once again I find myself willing on the sensibilities of our unelected peers.

I meant to post this a couple of days ago but forgot totally:

"THE government's case for identity cards has been dealt a serious blow on the day of a crucial Commons vote after the software giant Microsoft warned that the proposals could generate "massive identity fraud" on a scale as yet unseen.

In an article for The Scotsman today, Jerry Fishenden, the national technology officer for Microsoft, says the proposal to place "biometrics" - or personal identifiers such as fingerprints - on a central database could perpetuate the "very problem the system was intended to prevent". He says ministers "should not be building systems that allow hackers to mine information so easily".

(...)

Mr Fishenden says that, as no computer system is ever 100 per cent secure, "putting a comprehensive set of personal data in one place produces a honeypot effect - a highly attractive and richly rewarding target for criminals".

Ministers propose putting 13 personal identifiers, such as iris scans, fingerprints and facial imprints, on to a central database, along with personal details such as names and addresses. But the technology expert warns that holding these details in one place "is something that no technologist would ever recommend" and could leave individuals helpless if their details were compromised.

"Unlike other forms of information, such as credit card details, if core biometric details such as your fingerprints are compromised, it is not going to be possible to provide you with new ones," Mr Fishenden says. Using the same "identifiers" every time the ID card is presented is a "highly risky technical design" and could inadvertently broadcast personal information to fraudsters or private companies. Having to produce this much information for every service is "unnecessary" as systems could be designed to ensure that only the relevant data is revealed each time.

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=2103982005

(I can't find the actual article online)

btw - never seen that publicwhip.org.uk site before -- very handy, thanks.

[moggie]

4. Good grief

To find myself agreeing with Microsoft and looking to the House of Lords: I'm in Bizarro World.

My MP voted the right way (thanks, Glenda), but there are depressingly few with a spine.

[ikri]

5. 13 personal identifiers - LIE

That's complete and utter crap.

How did they come up with the 13 tests? Simple really
Facial recognition (sometimes works, unless you're bald)
2x Iris Scans, yeah 2 eyes = 2 identifiers (doesn't work well if you have brown eyes)
10x Fingerprint scans (can cause problems since prints can deteriorate over time, especially if you're a labourer)

So that's 3 tests that have all sorts of problems associated with them that added up somehow make 13 tests.

There's a lot of good info over at The Register - Digital rights/Digital wrongs section, especially this article on the scam of the 13 tests.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

6. thanks nt

[fedsron2us]

7. Since when has the UK government ever had a clue about IT

You just know that identity cards are going to be one massive computer fiasco.

[Taxloss]

3. And we're left to rely on the House of Lords.

What a fucking charade of democracy.

[Briar]

8. As further evidence of MPs spinelessness

they couldn't even muster 100 to support Clare Short's bill to ensure that Parliamentary approval is gained before British forces are committed to armed conflict, except in extreme circumstances. Hoon talked it out.