Leo King writes in ComputerWorld UK:

The union representing passport service workers has slammed the planned roll out of automated passport and ID cards processing as it has lead to job cut plans at the Identity and Passport Service agency.

The Public and Commercial Services Union said human processes were being automated, and resources were being “diverted” from passport processing to the introduction of ID cards. The government plans to close a key passport office in Glasgow, and has offered passport staff a below-inflation 2.5 percent pay rise.

Solomon Hughes writes in Tribune about De La Rue, a printing company:

The “war on terror” involves both military adventures abroad and “homeland security” programmes. The new “anti-terrorist” bureaucracies, databases and systems have been a bonanza for American corporations. In Britain, the biggest business provided by the “war on terror” involves the proposed national identity card system.

After profiting from Iraq, De La Rue has now turned its corporate attention to this new business opportunity. The firm is lobbying for profitable ID card contracts and has again utilised people with links to the highest echelons of government. One such is David Landsman, De La Rue’s international affairs advisor and the firm’s main contact for “identity systems”. He has spoken at conferences promoting ID cards alongside Home Office minister Liam Byrne.

Normally, former civil servants must have their jobs inspected for potential conflicts of interest by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. However, this committee has not considered Landsman’s job, because he is actually still employed by the Government and works for De La Rue on secondment.

Landsman is not the only current Government employee on De La Rue’s books. Cabinet Office official Gill Rider also sits on De La Rue’s board. Rider is “director-general of leadership and people strategy” – effectively the civil service head of human resources – as well as a director of a firm looking for work on the ID card.

Jean Eaglesham writes in the Financial Times:

Unions have thrown their weight behind airlines and airport operators in lobbying against the proposed roll-out of identity cards to the industry, adding to the political pressures on the government over the contentious scheme.

The Trades Union Congress has told Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, of its “significant and substantive” concerns about the plans for thousands of airport workers to become the first British nationals to be issued with the new biometric cards.

ID cards are due to become compulsory for workers in “sensitive roles” in the airline industry by autumn next year. Ministers claim the cards will prove more secure than the passes and swipe cards being used, in a sector of crucial importance to national security.

But the proposals are running into a wall of opposition. In a protest letter to Ms Smith, ten leading airline chief executives have stressed their “joint and determined opposition” to a proposal they claim will add unnecessary costs and risks to an already secure system.

Andrew Mueller writes in FT Magazine:

Two statements can be made with absolute certainty about the present government’s long-threatened compulsory identity card. One, it will cost billions of our hard-earned. Two, it will not make one resident of these islands happier, richer or safer than they are at time of writing. Despite these self-evident truths, it is bafflingly possible to encounter British adults who believe that the scheme represents a smarter use of public money than, for example, setting fire to it.

Update: Article now available online.

Hugh Muir writes in The Guardian:

Some things are non-negotiable. David Cameron will have no truck with ID cards. His loathing for the entire concept is visceral, so much so that the French say they will park the idea of a Euro ID during Sarkozy’s presidency of the European Union. “David Cameron told us that he feels physically sick every time the words ID card are mentioned,” said a senior Elysée source. “And we don’t want to make him sick.” This is how policy is made at the highest level. Don’t knock it. It seems to work.

Matthew Hickley writes in The Daily Mail:

Plans for a massive database snooping on the entire population were condemned yesterday as a ‘step too far for the British way of life’.

In an Orwellian move, the Home Office is proposing to detail every phone call, e-mail, text message, internet search and online purchase in the fight against terrorism and other serious crime.

But the privacy watchdog, Information Commissioner Richard Thomas, warned that the public’s traditional freedoms were under grave threat from creeping state surveillance.

Apart from the Government’s inability to hold data securely, he said the proposals raised ‘grave questions’.

‘Do the risks we face provide justification for such a scheme in the first place? Do we want the state to have details of more and more aspects of our private lives?

‘Whatever the benefits, would such a scheme amount to excessive surveillance? Would this be a step too far for the British way of life?’

John Welford writes in the Edinburgh Evening News, comparing various threats to privacy:

However, I must stress that the greatest threat to our privacy will come with the introduction of compulsory identity cards and the associated “database state”.

What you will really have to fear is the allocation to you of a Unique Person Number and then the linkage together into one vast multi-database structure of every scrap of information that the state holds on you: health, family, education, employment, property, finance and tax, state benefits, travel, libraries, leisure, etc. This will bring about cradle-to-grave surveillance.

Jeremy Watson writes in Scotland on Sunday about the Walport/Thomas “Data Sharing Review” on how personal information is used:

The concerns are official. Last Friday, the Government’s own review of the spreading use of personal information, commissioned by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, recommended that ministers should launch an inquiry into firms which gather information and then pass, or sell, it on.

The report by the English Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, and the director of the Wellcome Trust, Dr Mark Walport, said the public should have a right to know with whom a company shares, exchanges or sells information. “Opt outs” on the internet should be made clearer, it added, and such moves would make it far easier for the public to control who knows what, and limit the availability of contact details used by cold-callers and junk and spam mailers.

He reports concerns that government use of data may pose the largest privacy threat:

For the Freedom Association, the biggest threat to privacy from the unfettered flow of personal information comes not from retailers but from central and local Government. “Information is power and money, but no-one is forcing you to take a store card,” said Richards. “What is far more sinister is the use that the authorities can put all this information to.”

Local councils were criticised earlier this year by the Local Government Association for using new anti-terror laws to spy on residents. The laws, passed under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) last October, were intended to protect against a serious terrorist attack. But, unknown to most of the public, they also give more than 600 public sector bodies the right to demand itemised phone bills and carry out surveillance to investigate all kinds of offences.

In the coming era of local authority ‘green police’, failing to recycle your rubbish could put you under surveillance. If the UK implements the full directive on which Ripa is based, then the powers could be extended to browsing patterns on the internet and e-mail accounts. And it is not as if the march of technology is going to stop any time soon. A national identity card, carrying as yet undecided sets of data, is still on the Government’s agenda.

The “Data Sharing Review” can be downloaded here.

Becky Hogge writes in the New Statesman about government’s management of personal data:

More worryingly, this government still hasn’t got the message just how dangerous is its transformational government (read “total information awareness”) agenda, politically and practically. Although it had been hoped that a change from Tony Blair to Brown might provide a chance to scrap Labour’s draconian identity card scheme, that now seems unlikely. Laughably, the May by-election campaign in Crewe and Nantwich was actually built around ID cards.

The recommendations made by Poynter echo those put forward by a recent Commons home affairs select committee review in a document entitled A Surveillance Society. In brief, to meet the challenges of the digital age, government departments must, among other things (such as not burning personal data on to unencrypted discs and sending them by carrier pigeon to the Isle of Wight), operate a policy of data minimisation. That means holding the least information possible in order to complete the task in hand.

How does this square with government initiatives such as ContactPoint (the complete, unabridged database of the nation’s children), the NHS data spine, the police DNA database or the Home Office’s recently leaked plans (fear them, for they are indeed true) to capture communications traffic data for the entire nation and store it in a big shed somewhere outside Cheltenham? In a word: badly.

All of which means this administration needs to find a reverse gear some time before 2010, or it won’t (only) be the other half of the nation’s bank details that it loses - it will be the next general election.

John Lettice writes in The Register:

Fresh from its success in selling ID cards to the aviation industry, the Home Office has moved straight on to young people with a ‘have your say’ online forum, mylifemyid.org. The site is fronted by a video of Home Secretary Jacqui Smith getting down with the yoof of Shooters Hill College.

Or at least it was - the site went down for “maintenance” before we got as far as the end of that paragraph. But from memory, we can tell you that the initial response from users has been positive, with comments ranging from (we paraphrase slightly) ‘how can we stop this nightmare scheme’, through ‘you’re going to spin the results of the survey anyway’, to ‘patronising guff.’

The new Home Office site aimed at getting “feedback” from 16-25s, is here.

Rafael Behr, writing in The Guardian, describes random ID card checks in Russia:

The essence of the identity check is to reinforce a false idea of permission. The street belongs to the state and you need to prove your right to walk down it. In Russia, that relationship is hardly questioned by citizens. Of course you depend on the Kremlin for its indulgence in allowing you to move around the country.

But in a democratic society, permission should work the other way round. We, as free citizens, give our consent to a small group of people, chosen from among us, to wield power for a fixed term and on the condition that they don’t abuse it. If we get up to no good, we give them licence to intervene – to use force if necessary – to stop us. But the rest of the time, we do not need permission. That is why, of all the various erosions of civil liberties introduced by New Labour, I find the idea of compulsory ID cards the most pernicious. I do not need leave from the government to walk the streets. They need permission from me to police the streets – my streets, our streets.

Fortunately, Britain is immeasurably freer than Russia. The police generally do not wander around harassing people for ID to remind them who owns the place. Let’s keep it that way.

Andrew Porter writes in the Daily Telegraph:

The cost of Britain’s “surveillance society” measures is now running at £20 billion, a new report reveals today.

The amount is equivalent to £800 per household and includes £19 billion for the planned ID card system and £500 million for CCTV cameras.

The report by the TaxPayers’ Alliance was highlighted by David Davis, the former shadow home secretary, who stands in a by-election this week on the issue of civil liberties. Mr Davis resigned as an MP after the opposition failed to defeat Government plans to hold terrorism suspects for 42 days.

Mr Davis said: “This is yet further damning evidence of Big Brother’s expensive tastes. ID cards, CCTV, the DNA database and other measures are a huge waste of taxpayers’ money on policies that undermine freedom and are utterly ineffective in fighting crime or terrorism.

The Taxpayers’ Alliance report can be downloaded here.

Vicki Woods writes in the Daily Telegraph:

One of our ancient liberties, the one that really makes my teeth grit, is the lunacy of the centralised database that will hold all our ID cards. I occasionally wear a badge given to me by No2ID.com, and often check their website. On Thursday it was a-buzz about a heavy-handed and rather stupid response to a No2ID.com protest.

What happened was that Meg Hillier, under-secretary of state at the Home Office in charge of ID, held what was purported to be a “public consultation” about ID cards at a hotel in Edinburgh. This “public consultation” has been going on for three months already on the Home Office website, and one might suppose it means that the Home Office is consulting the public. It does not. The ID Act was passed in 2006; it’s a done deal; I resent it, and the “public” who were being consulted in Edinburgh were invited “stakeholders”, being consulted about which of them wanted a share of the ID-card business.

Protesters from No2ID.com, some dressed up in East German Stasi uniforms, tried to get into the “public” meeting, one was manhandled out and nine people were arrested and held by police. For what? For being “on suspicion” (according to the Glasgow Herald) “of a breach of the peace.” For a political protest? In that cradle of liberty, the United Kingdom? This kind of thing makes me fizz with rage.

The Hull Daily Mail reports:

Sir Bob Geldof was today throwing his celebrity weight behind former East Yorkshire MP David Davis’s decision to highlight the issue of civil liberties.

Sir Bob – a close ally of Prime Minister Gordon Brown on tackling poverty and repression in Africa – was joining Mr Davis on the campaign trail in the Haltemprice and Howden by-election.

It is thought the pair will also speak at a rally at the Guildhall in Hull at lunchtime.

The text of Sir Bob’s speech, carried on David Davis’ web site, includes a passage on ID cards:

Why should I carry an ID card? I own my identity – not them. Why should I have to identify myself to the state? How dare they demand I identify myself? To whom am I identifying myself and for what? Spain, France and Germany have had identity cards for decades and have more or less the same levels of crime as us. So why insist on them. The war on terror is no answer. Indeed there will soon be a brisk business in false British cards and more seriously they didn’t stop the bombers in Germany or Spain.

It is of course almost comically Orwellian to trot out that comprehensively stupid, complacent and absurd excuse of the natural authoritarian The classic “Only the guilty need be afraid” line. And how sickening to hear it in England. “Only the guilty need be afraid”. Really? This repulsive expression beloved of tabloid and home secretary alike has at least got the virtue that it is demonstrably false.

The Economist covers the bye-election campaign in Haltemprice and Howden:

… thanks to its MP, David Davis, the seat has become a forum for the vexed debate on the trade-off between liberty and security that has gripped Westminster. On June 12th, the day after Parliament voted to extend maximum detention without charge for terrorist suspects from 28 to 42 days, Mr Davis resigned as the Conservative home-affairs spokesman and announced that he would quit his seat. He said he would campaign in the resulting by-election, which takes place on July 10th, on the issue of defending civil liberties from 42 days, identity cards, CCTV cameras, DNA databases and other incursions.

The author notes Mr Davis’ comments on changing public attitudes to the National Identity Scheme:

Instead, Mr Davis envisages his role after the by-election as that of one-man pressure group. Public opinion can seem an insurmountable barrier for civil libertarians (there was a clear majority in favour of 42 days). But Mr Davis notes that popular support for ID cards has slipped as voters have been made aware of their drawbacks.

Dan Milmo writes on the Guardian’s web-site:

Britain’s leading airline bosses have accused the government of using their industry as a political pawn in the national identity card debate by forcing aviation workers to join the scheme next year.

In a scathing letter to the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, the chief executives of British Airways, easyJet, Virgin Atlantic and BMI said that forcing airport workers to have an ID card from November next year was “unnecessary” and “unjustified”.

All airport airside workers, who work in departure areas and on runways, must enrol in the scheme from next year under government plans, but the aviation industry is claiming it will bring no security benefits.

“First and foremost, no additional security benefits have been identified. Indeed, there is a real risk that enrolment in the national ID scheme will be seen to provide an added, but ultimately false, sense of security to our processes,” said the British Air Transport Association (Bata) letter, signed by airline bosses including Willie Walsh of British Airways and Andy Harrison of easyJet.

The full text of the letter, expressing “joint and determined opposition to the proposal” is here.

STV reports a NO2ID protest at the final Home Office “ID card delivery consultation” in Edinburgh:

Dressed as East German secret police officers and wearing bar-coded face masks to depict what they say are the de-humanising effects of ID cards, opponents of the government’s plans who gathered outside this Edinburgh hotel were determined to be noticed. Inside, Home Office minister Meg Hillier was meeting councils, the police and other bodies who will be affected by the introduction of national ID cards. But the protestors were determined to have their voices heard too and tried to enter the meeting. One who’d got in using a false name was thrown out.

Geraint Bevan from NO2ID Scotland said: “We’ve asked if they would come to a proper public forum to debate the issues and they’ve refused. Instead, they’re having a very selective audience of people who will either profit from the introduction of ID cards or from people like the police, who they think they will get a more sympathetic hearing from. It’s all a propaganda exercise, rather than a real public consultation.”

Adrian Ramsay writes in The New Statesman about David Davis and the Haltemprice and Howden bye-election:

An even more systemised form of intrusion is the proposal for ID cards, and in particular the information database that sits behind them. David Davis is now voicing opposition to the scheme, but in 2004 he voted in favour of a national ID scheme.

Again it is the Green Party that has provided consistent political opposition to ID cards: we have endorsed the NO2ID campaign (something David Davis and the Conservative Party have conspicuously failed to do). In Charles Clarke’s constituency of Norwich South (where the Green Party is the main opposition party to Labour) we strongly campaigned against Clarke’s authoritarian proposals as Home Secretary – including his attempts to bring in 90 days’ detention without charge.

Tony Benn, writing in the Sunday Telegraph, lists the reasons why he supports David Davis’ re-election campaign:

There are two other critical ways in which liberties are being eroded, both highlighted by Mr Davis.

The first is identity cards. I have no objection to them in principle, because in the course of my life I have held many cards with my photo, name and profession printed on them. What matters more is the huge database being established in concert with ID cards, on which will be gathered every bit of information that it is possible to collect. It may contain your financial status, political opinions, email contacts and more - no one will really know what is on that database.

Indeed, the information held may be inaccurate. When I recently renewed my passport, I noticed that I am still described as a Member of Parliament. If the Government does not know that I am not an MP seven years after I stepped down, it does not inspire confidence that a more wide-ranging identity database would be very reliable.

The information may leak, and it would be valuable for commercial and other purposes, including fraud and terrorism. Despite the guarantees of ministers, and regardless of whatever safeguards are promised, we know from recent examples that information held by the Government can escape.

Hugo Rifkind writes in The Spectator:

Well I never. You think the government has taken its eye off the ball. You think they’ve got nothing to do except rear up in the Daily Mail to tell us how lucky we all are, or pen little slurs in political magazines because they are jealous that they never get to hang out with Shami Chakrabarti. Then, suddenly, they go and hit you with a move of real, breathtaking political genius. They decide to hand over ID cards to the Post Office.

That’s a good one, isn’t it? That’s raw, political cynicism at its best. How can you be anti-ID cards if those same ID cards are going to be saving the Post Office? No matter if they are only for dodgy foreign nationals at first. Your sleepy rural branch has just been handed a lifeline. Bing! Window Nine! ‘Ah, Mr Abu Qatada, is it? Yes, fingerprint here, please. And can we interest you in any of our additional services? Home insurance, perhaps? No? Not worried about burglary, sir? House quite secure? Ah. Jolly good.’

Brilliant. It’s only a proposal, for now, and the story looked like it came from the Post Office. The suspicion, surely, has to be that it did not. If the government plays this right, the issues of ID cards and Post Office preservation could become irrevocably entwined. I don’t mean to gush, but it really is damnably clever. Hand a new, loathed, controversial measure over to a beloved, failing national institution, and the traditionalist nay-sayers don’t know which way to leap. In the British psyche, some things are more important than liberty. The Post Office is one of them.