Identity Project Status Report- Homeoffice misdirection

“We are extremely concerned at the ongoing culture of secrecy endemic in the planning of the identity cards proposals. The Home Office has conducted most of its work in a covert fashion, refusing to disclose information that would inform debate, and conducting negotiations in a closed environment. This process is inimical to the creation of trust. This situation also makes further research on the proposals impossible.”

The London School of Economics has published their latest Identity Project Status Report concerning the governments Identity Cards Bill 2005.

The last report was immediately damned by the Government at every turn in what can only be described as behaviour of the intensely insecure. Why are the Government so insecure about the details of their Bill?

Some selected quotes from the new report

“We were perplexed by the Home Office’s continued insistence that it is absolutely right on so many of these matters. In such an extraordinarily complex arena filled with countless uncertainties the department never once conceded that it has misjudged even the slightest detail.”

“We were astonished by the response from Government officials and Ministers, many of whom launched spurious, misleading and ad hominem attacks on the report and its authors. These sensational statements were very different from those expected during normal academic critique.”

“In claiming that the UK proposals are an international obligation the government has systematically misled the public and parliament.”

“There have followed some extraordinary and unfounded claims from Government ministers regarding our
research, including ‘unsubstantiated assumptions’, and ‘plagiarism’…”

“The Home Office accuses us of over-estimating the costs for ‘marketing’…We only mention the term ‘marketing’ twice in the 300 page report”

“We note, however, that the Home Office’s criticism of our first report has become more measured over time, possibly as a result of the soundness and logic of our calculations. The criticism has tended to become conditional and specific. For example, compared with the original claims that the report was “mad” and “fabricated”, the most recent comments by Home Office Minister Baroness Scotland appear almost conciliatory”

“The Home Office continues to ignore sound expert advice on the risks inherent in a centralised repository of data. It has become obsessed with arguing that the technology can be made secure but has failed to grasp the simple fact that human error and criminality in a centralised system can create the gravest security threats.”

“We find the Home Office’s statements of absolute certainty in the technology quite puzzling.”

Leave a Reply