You don't know what to believe these days. At the beginning of July the Indy was saying:
The Treasury is launching its own study into the cost of identity cards amid growing signs that Gordon Brown may abandon the scheme if he becomes Prime Minister.
Then this morning the Sunday Times reported a leaked Home Office memo suggesting the scheme could operate at a profit if they charge £8 every time someone wants to make a change, for example to record a change in name, marital status or address, which we'd be obliged to do:
According to the leaked document, which emerged after Blair spoke in defence of the scheme, these charges will enable ID cards to raise as much as £1.5 billion a year in revenue for the Treasury.
The Sunday Times added:
Blair said that whatever the technical issues, it would be "a major plank of Labour’s manifesto at the next election"... The move was interpreted as an attempt by Blair to bind Gordon Brown, his likely successor, to the scheme. It is acknowledged in Whitehall that Brown and the Treasury have reservations about the project.
But now the Indy reports that Gordon Brown is considering exploiting the commercial potential of the ID Card scheme to fund a massive expansion of the programme:
The Chancellor, far from being sceptical about the proposed identity card and database, is exploring a range of private-sector applications. He is said to be convinced that biometric ID schemes will be introduced by the private sector, regardless of government decisions.
Standardising the official ID card and any commercial schemes would drive down the cost and enable greater data sharing between police and firms. For example, police could be alerted as soon as a wanted person used a biometric-enabled cash card or even entered a building via an iris-scan door.
So not only will we face ever increasing and ultimately unbearable intrusion into every aspect of our once private lives, but that encroachment will be fuelled by Government greed as much as by their control freakery.
UPDATE: John Lettice has a decent and deeper analysis of this "daft" plan in The Register.
Comments