THE THREAT OF 'THE SINGLE GATEWAY' TO EVERYDAY LIFE
26 November 2005

On 18 October, Sentido reported that numerous sources had outlined serious flaws in Britain's planned biometric ID-card scheme. On 1 November, the Financial Times reported Tony Blair's government would push ahead, despite grave civil liberties and identity-theft and black-market fraud concerns.

The gist of the new tack by government, in light of the serious objections raised by a number of opponents, was that the biometric features would turn the ID cards into "the single gateway into a whole range of services that people need in their everyday lives", this according to Home Office minister Andy Burnham. It is not hard to see how such a declaration could indicate indifference to civil liberties.

The "single gateway" argument shows many problematic canines and is hard to see as enticing to those who prize the liberties of a democratic system:

Any electronic system can fail: if one's "single gateway" for demonstrating "I am myself" malfunctions, one is denied access not only to the rights of a free citizen, but more immediately, is denied services perhaps already paid for, or possibly, and ultimately, access to one's own identity and to the fabric of one's own life.

What's more, in order for biometric cards to be a "gateway" at all, those "services that people need in their everyday lives" must first be walled off by government and open access to those routine necessities denied. This can only be classified as "protecting the rights of the individual" if rights are totally redefined, made conditional and put behind an electronic barrier. Only then can any philosophical argument for the "liberating effect" of technologically demanding biometric ID cards begin to be made.

If biometric ID cards are required —UK plan for 2013— to "gain access" to public services, then the government not only compels the surrender of one's most intimate personal (biological) information —eliminating all possible permutations of a right to privacy or of government of, by and for the people—, it also actively discriminates to bring about that collapse of principles that privilege individual liberty over state control.

As mentioned in previous Sentido articles and in many other sources, with regard to the security-versus-liberty debate, and as a matter of principle, liberal democracy is incompatible with any mandate to carry a specific ID —thought to prove one's rights— or else be inhibited by dependence on the government to provide and always-on, technology-based electronic service in order to have access to "a whole range" of basic everyday services, much less those that —admittedly— "people need".

Commercial interests would be greatly limited in their ability to do business if all ID used had to fit a specific technological profile and if a particular and highly complex computerized system were required —just think of malfunctioning Underground gates or vending machines that take money but give nothing in return. The government would be giving itself a monopoly on electronic transactions and their ID-based approval. It's hardly paranoia to suggest that this may be too much power to put into the hands of any one organization, much less a government.

The only way the cards could reasonably be considered to protect the rights of the individual would be in a case where that were their defined function. In fact, it isn't, and it will not be. Their function is "security", that great vague term to which everyone seems to aspire but which no one can adequately delimit, and for which history has shown there is no true guarantee. This means the individual is already suspect in the vision that structures the system, so in the event of a systemic glitch or even outright failure, it will be the state, not the individual, whose (perceived) "interests" will be prioritized. Individuals whose cards cause them trouble will be asked to be patient, or possibly taken aside for additional questioning —as at airports, for instance.

"Automaticity". The system is built around an unhealthy conceptual pitfall: the idea that its proper functioning will automatically serve the public interest, create security and improve people's everyday lives. But, the great dream of automatic problem solving, as by computer calculation, is one that simply denies the realities of a contingent universe. Faith in automaticity means blindness to shortcoming —and susceptibility to hubris— and in the case of ID cards, it will mean a vested interest for authorities managing the system not to acknowledge its failings.

"Being able to prove one's identity" may be a societal necessity, but the individual is better served if that ability is within the natural powers of the human individual: signing one's name, for instance, is difficult to copy spontaneously and is determined by one's personal physical talents and tendencies, and of course, it requires no expensive scanners or RFID equipment. The existing standard allows the individual to express the twin legal status of identity and liberty without needing the state's attention or service in defining either.

To add to the antidemocratic brush with automaticity, the government's plan for launching the ID cards includes possible legislation by diktat. Under an obscure provision of the Salisbury Convention, the House of Lords does not oppose "manifesto commitments" made by a party that subsequently wins a majority in parliamentary elections. That means the Blair government might impose this legislation, despite lack of support or even outright opposition in the upper house, ignoring very real civil liberties and balance of power objections and forcing the Lords to decide whether to break with legislative convention and oppose what the majority party terms a "manifesto commitment".

Forbidding the smile: technical problems have arisen during testing, in several countries across Europe and North America, with facial recognition photos in which people are smiling. Quite simply, advanced computerized facial recognition software has difficulty matching smiling and serious facial expressions made by the same person. As a consequence, several governments are now imposing the restriction that people are not permitted to smile when being photographed for ID purposes.

The director of Berlin's passport office has been quoted as saying: "Under the new rules people must have a neutral facial expression and look straight at the camera. Just a moment ago we sent someone home because their picture didn't fit with the biometrics".

The array of technical errors and human rights concerns inherent in the implementation of a global standard of biometric ID cards should give great pause to anyone in a position to decide the issue. It also indicates serious need for informed debate in the public forum on an issue which may well define the nature of civil liberties and of everyday life in societies across the world.