Is the Government falsely claiming benefits?
Posted on Saturday, November 1st, 2008 by Home Office WatchCategory: ID Cards
A top Government security consultant seems to think so.
Both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have insisted that the ID card scheme will reduce the risk of terrorism and improve national security.
However, GCHQ advisor Harvey Mattinson told an IT security conference this week that “Those claims are absolute bunkum.”
Gordon Brown said earlier this year that ID cards would “help inside our borders in the fight against crime, illegal working, benefit fraud and terrorism.”
Chris Huhne, Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesperson said, “The money for this costly and useless ID card scheme should go on more police on our streets, a measure that would help to cut crime and fight terrorism.”
Martin Horwood, Liberal Democrat MP for Cheltenham said, “I can’t see how ID cards could have stopped any of the major terrorist attacks we have seen in recent years.
“The 9/11 terrorists had valid US passports and documents, while the Madrid and London bombers were all identified and possessed appropriate paperwork and ID.”
From the Telegraph
From thisisgloucestershire
You can sign the Liberal Democrats’ petition against ID cards here.
Related posts:
November 15th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Other EU govts are making their ID cards useful, because they are eID cards - they contain functions to assist with secure transactions with govt across the internet, methods that will extend to the private sector. We don’t do eID here, as Meg Hiller recently acknowledged at a conference. Yet the UK is part of the STORK project to develop interoperability of ID cards across Europe - its HO that is responsible, but quietly the good people at DWP are doing the UK end of this EU collaborative programme.
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:17 pm
It is clear hat the prime purpose if the ID card sceme is to for it to be useful to the citizen. It is quite plainly of little or no use whatever against terrorism, illegal working, ID fraud etc. It is quite plainly not necessary to indentify a person to record 53 pieces of information about them, the prime purpose must therefore be as a state surveilance measure. The state wants to record all it can about you, so at to better keep an eye on you, Stazi style.