Related posts:

1. TSSI raises concern over ID card scheme
2. Is the writing on the wall for the Government’s ID card scheme?

Privacy watchdog The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is to make the plea in response to the government’s plans for a mandatory code of practice for the industry.

The ICO fears police are using licensing conditions to make pubs install CCTV or identity scanners, which can provide information on their drinkers.

Under the new mandatory code of practice consulation, the government avoided plans to make CCTV a blanket condition for all pubs, but councils will be able to force outlets in trouble-spots to operate surveillance if it feels it is needed.

Deputy information commissioner David Smith said strict new rules to reign in police demands were still required and urged clarity in the code.

“What we are worried about is that businesses are being forced into gathering information for police and the law enforcement agencies,” he said.

“The question is whether we are going too far and is this surveillance at a level that is unacceptable that doesn’t justify the benefits. Pubs and clubs should not become information gathering sources for police.”

Smith said the ICO wanted some “very clear guidance” on how far police can go. “We wonder how many landlords have simply gone along with police demands when there weren’t any proper grounds to do so,” he added.

An ICO spokeswoman later said: “There needs to an absolute reason why CCTV or ID scanners need to be in place. We understand that CCTV can serve an important purpose, but we don’t want licensees to feel they have to have CCTV to have a licence.”

Earlier this year, Islington licensee Nick Gibson won a battle with police not to have CCTV at his newly-opening pub on the basis it would interfere with his customer’s civil liberties.

The public consultation on the code of practice close on August 5.

Related posts:

1. Warning over use of CCTV in pubs
2. Police admit CCTV not effective - solves less than 1 crime per year

Residents spotted the van in the area this week, capturing images for the website’s extensive mapping programme.

The site features photographs of every street in towns which have been “mapped” by Google’s mysterious-looking cars with blacked-out windows.

People living in St Mark’s had mixed views on whether or not they were in favour of their homes, gardens – and even themselves – being caught on camera.

Jess Cave, who lives in Spenser Road, gave it the thumbs up.
She said: “I think it’s only a bit of fun so I don’t really mind. I don’t feel like I’m being spied on and I’m not bothered by it.

“I’m sure I’ll be checking it out when it goes online.”

Student Cindie Taylor, who is looking to move into the area, said it would help her to look at houses.

She said: “I love it and I’ll be checking it out when they put it up on the web.

“I’ll be able to see what places are like when I’m looking for somewhere to live.”

Pensioner Margaret Slack was also in favour. She said: “I’m not bothered at all by it. I’ve got nothing to hide so why not.”
However Cheralyn Rendall, who lives in Shakespeare Road, said: “It’s an invasion of privacy. It just seems pointless. I can’t really understand the reason behind it.

“I’ve got young kids and I wouldn’t want them to be looked at on the internet through this.”

Lucie Bennett, who also lives in Spenser Road, said: “If my daughter was out playing in the garden and it caught her on camera I wouldn’t like that.

“I think they should tell people beforehand what they’re going to do rather than just turn up when they choose.”

Pensioner Michael Poppleton said: “It’s an invasion of privacy and if they caught me on camera I’d be asking them to remove it.”
Beverley Fennel, who lives just off Shakespeare Road, agreed.

She said: “I’m not against CCTV for people’s safety but this seems like too much of an invasion of privacy.

“It’s not going to really benefit anyone, so what’s the point? People have a right to do what they want in their homes and gardens without a camera coming past and taking a picture.”

The system allows people to search for 360-degree pictures of “virtual” streets.

It’s not yet known when the coverage will be complete and available to view online.

Residents concerned over privacy can ask for their faces to be blurred out, via the Street View website.

Related posts:

1. MP angered by Street View ‘invasion’
2. Google Street View - an invasion of privacy?

By Anthony Hildebrand  |

A new BBC series looks at surveillance in the UK. It’s something the industry could learn from, says I4S editor Anthony Hildebrand.

Last Monday the BBC broadcast the first in a new three-part series called ‘Who’s Watching You?’ UK readers can view the show (until next Monday) by using the BBC’s iPlayer facility.

In his BBC blog, series producer Mike Rudd says: “Cheaper and more advanced technology has prompted a massive expansion in surveillance – not just through CCTV, listening devices, tracking, but also through all the personal data that’s collected on every one of us.

“As the Information Commissioner Richard Thomas says, we leave an “electronic footprint” behind us almost wherever we go – with every click of the mouse, every phone call, every time we use a credit card. And that information just grows and grows, allowing a more and more detailed and intrusive picture to be constructed of how we each live our lives.

“The paradox is that there is a great deal of support for things like CCTV. We all benefit from better crime detection and from easier and cheaper services. But we know surprisingly little about the depth and breadth of modern surveillance, or about the potential problems when things go wrong.”
A lot to offer
The show is an ‘authored’ piece, with presenter Richard Bilton offering his views and opinions on the issues raised – which included council misuse of RIPA powers, ANPR use by police, data loss, and more.

And because it’s an authored investigation, it employs ever-present, irritating, faux-degraded imitations of CCTV footage, and annoying, constantly moving, constantly zooming and re-focusing cameras. We get it, Mike, ok? It’s about CCTV. Relax.

But despite these stylistic reservations, I think programmes such as this one have a lot to teach the security industry about the actual concerns of the public. Investigations into the ‘surveillance state’ are often dismissed by the industry as alarmist and ill-informed, but the very fact that programmes such as this one are being made – to express the concerns of a sizable proportion of the public – mean the image of the surveillance industry could do with some improving.

If the security industry is to be effective in preventing crime, terror and other incidents, and in investigating and prosecuting those that do take place, it needs the trust of the public behind it.
Confusing messages
As Bilton himself said on Monday, the British public sends out confusing messages about surveillance. “We embrace it, and want more, not less,” he said. And we allow cameras deeper into our private lives than authorities would (currently) dare go.

But there is a constant concern about the potential for a ‘police state’. And that is amplified when cameras and surveillance methods become intrusive.

This can be simply an irritation. But there’s potential for it to be much worse, unless it is regulated and controlled effectively.

We’re always told “if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to worry about.” Which is fine if you know where you stand. But what if the goalposts shift? What if – perish the thought – a government which you don’t agree with, with different notions of what ‘nothing to hide’ might mean – comes to power?
Protected from protectors
There needs to be a system in place to ensure surveillance – and more specifically, surveillance databases – cannot be used against the people they are meant to protect.

Like it or not, the security industry has a responsibility to ensure that the use of its equipment and technologies are safeguarded through effective and stringent privacy and data protection legislation and enforceable standards.

And for its own good – for our own good – it needs to be seen to be advocating privacy, care with databases, and individual rights. It’s not only good PR, it’s for the greater good.

At the close of the first episode, Bilton says he seen no evidence so far to support ‘Big Brother’ theories. But, he says: “I think the march of surveillance is pretty much unstoppable. And if that’s the case, I think we need more protection, better regulations, and stronger safeguards.”

Related posts:

1. Big Brother Insanity: Cameras Watching Cameras
2. George Orwell, Big Brother is watching your house

At the time of the theft from RAF Innsworth, about 113 miles west of London, Britain’s defense ministry said only that personal data such as bank details and addresses could have been lost.

But the memo confirms that the data included details of security vetting, potentially involving information on criminal convictions, debts, medical conditions and sexual activity.

‘This data provides an excellent target list for foreign intelligence services, investigative journalists and blackmailers,’ the memo stated.

Britain’s defense ministry declined Monday to confirm the details of the lost data, but said there is no evidence it is in the hands of criminals or enemy forces.

‘All individuals identified as being at risk received personal one-on-one interviews to alert them to the loss of data, to discuss potential threats and to provide them with advice on mitigating action,’ a ministry spokeswoman said, on condition of anonymity in line with policy. — AP

Related posts:

1. Government can’t be trusted with our personal information
2. Information Commissioner publishes freedom of information guidance for personal data

Sean Cassidy whose son Ciaran died on the London underground, said, “This is a complete whitewash. We now need a public inquiry. It is the only thing that will answer all the questions. It has to be independent. We are four years on and there are still no answers.”

Robert Webb, whose sister Laura died, said, “The ISC report seemed to give the benefit of the doubt to MI5 in a way the Hutton Report or the Butler Inquiry did to MI6 over Iraq… I feel I owe it to Laura to get some answers… We need a fair independent inquiry that asks robust questions of MI5 and the police into why decisions were made and looks at wider questions of why these men did what they did.”

Rachel North, who survived the July 7 bombings, accused MI5 of using “weasel words” over what they knew, adding, “It does look a lot like MI5 ran rings around the MPs” who sit on the ISC.

In the aftermath of the July 7 bombings, then Home Secretary Charles Clarke said the attacks came “out of the blue” and the four bombers—Mohammad Siddique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Germaine Lindsay and Hasib Hussain—were “clean skins” with no known links to terrorism. Ministers and senior security officials insisted there was no warning of an imminent attack.

The ISC report confirms that, in reality, there was a wealth of information about the bombers, particularly Khan. “As we have delved deeper,” it declares, “we have uncovered new information that even the organisations involved had not connected together.” In relation to Khan the report reveals:

* He was cautioned by West Yorkshire Police for assault in 1993, a police record created and his photograph taken.

* In 2001, several months before the September 11 bombings in New York, Khan was one of 40 men filmed by West Yorkshire Police surveillance officers at a suspected terrorist training camp in Yorkshire, although he remained unidentified.

* In late March 2003, MI5 received intelligence that Mohammed Quayam Khan, from Luton, was the leader of an “Al-Qaida facilitation network”, which provided financial and logistical support to the organisation. MI5 launched an investigation called Operation Crevice, about which it informed the ISC.

* In April 2003, Siddique Khan was seen driving a car carrying an extremist suspect connected to another investigation.

* In July 2003, Quayam Khan’s mobile phone was found to contain the number of Siddique Khan’s phone, which was registered to an Islamist bookshop in Leeds.

* In January 2004, MI5 received intelligence that another individual in the network, Omar Khyam, was involved in an active bomb plot. Khyam became MI5’s “top priority” and Operation Crevice developed into “the largest operation they had ever run”. Khyam was under “consistent” surveillance and everyone he met and spoke to was “assessed”.

* On February 2, 2004, Khan met Khyam near Crawley and was followed and photographed on his way back to Leeds.

* On February 20, 2004, the same day that 600 kilograms of fertiliser was discovered in a warehouse, electronics expert Mohammed Momin Khawaja arrived from Canada to give advice to the Crevice group on remote detonation devices. The following day Khan attended a “farewell” meal with the group and Khawaja.

* On three occasions between February 28 and March 23, 2004 Khan drove to Crawley to meet Khyam and was heard talking about financial fraud, the “success of the Madrid bombings” and returning to “jihad” in Pakistan. Despite being followed home again on one occasion to Leeds, Khan still remained unidentified and classified as a “desirable” target for MI5 investigation (Khyam was classified as “essential”). MI5 told the ISC that they could easily have identified Khan, but did not because he was considered a “small-time fraudster” who had “minor contact” with the Crevice plotters.

* At the end of March 2004, Khyam and seven others in the Crevice group were arrested on suspicion of involvement in the fertiliser plot, tried and found guilty in April 2007.

* In May 2004, a detainee revealed that a man named “Ibrahim” had travelled to Pakistan in 2003 and met the future Crevice group members there.

* In June-July 2004, ten “extremely sensitive” emails are exchanged between West Yorkshire Police and MI5 about Khan and other Crevice contacts in the Leeds area. One of the emails was nine pages long and contained Khan’s 1993 photograph.

* On July 14, 2004, a check on the Police National Computer showed that there had been 21 enquiries about Khan’s car since August 2003.

* On February 9, 2005, Khan’s car was put on the Automatic Number Plate Recognition system so that CCTV cameras around the country could track it.

* On April 12, 2005, following confirmation from another source that “Ibrahim” had been in Pakistan, MI5 launched Operation DO*** (the full name is redacted in the ISC report) to identify him. It was not until after the 7/7 bombings that Ibrahim was discovered to be Khan. Recent evidence suggests a fifth man was involved and remains at large.

Faced with these facts, the MPs on the ISC had no option but to express their astonishment. Their report declares, “even though Siddique/Sidique/Sadique Khan was not assessed to be significant it is nevertheless surprising, given the amount of information MI5 and the police had on him, that they said they had not identified Mohammed Siddique Khan prior to 7/7.”

However, the report concludes, “We cannot criticise the judgments made by MI5 and the police based on the information that they had and their priorities at the time.”

Throughout its 102 pages, the report strives to excuse the failure of the police and security services to identify the July 7 bombers by referring to “missed opportunities,” only made clear with the benefit of hindsight. It claims the different ways Siddique was spelt hampered the investigation!

The report also claims MI5 was hampered by lack of resources. MI5’s undisclosed budget has tripled since 2001 and the annual bill for all intelligence related activity stands at £2.5 billion a year.

The report brands as “astounding” the revelation that MI5 had been able to investigate only one in 20 terror suspects in 2004 and that 54 “essential” targets were not even being watched. The ISC states, “They had to prioritise even within this essential group. Therefore a “desirable” target did not even get close to attracting a share of the limited resources available.” The ISC report makes the outlandish statement that several hundred thousand MI5 officers would be needed to meet all eventualities, as opposed to the current 3,500.

The report also claims MI5 was overwhelmed by the vast amount of information it had to deal with, citing the tens of thousands of phone calls monitored between January and March 2004, of which 4,020 were connected to Operation Crevice.

Many of the key facts that would give a better assessment of Khan’s importance are redacted in the report on the grounds of national security. These include the number of networks being investigated, the number of people “housed” (followed back to their homes), or numbers travelling to Pakistan to attend terrorist training camps. More extraordinary is the revelation that the record of the targets deemed “essential” and “desirable” in 2004 is “no longer available” following update of MI5’s IT system.

Also redacted from the report are all details about specific warnings that Saudi Arabian intelligence had passed on to British and US intelligence in December 2004 about a terror plot by British-born Muslims, aimed at the London Underground or a nightclub. The ISC says it received no reply for requests for further information made to the Saudi Embassy or the French Embassy about statements made by the then French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy. He said he had been told at the European Union terrorism meeting following the London bombings that some of the suspects were arrested in 2004 and then released in order to break a wider network.

The above facts are sufficient to justify a public inquiry into the UK’s worst mainland terrorist atrocity. The necessity is compounded by the recent not guilty verdict handed down to three men accused of helping to plan the July 7 bombings. After nearly four years and despite a massive police investigation costing some £100 million, they remain the only people to have faced any charges in relation to the London bombings.

Above all, the July 7 terror bombings in London were used to justify an unprecedented offensive against civil liberties, including the adoption of a shoot-to-kill policy by the police that claimed the life of innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes. Only days after the bombings, Prime Minister Tony Blair rejected calls for a public inquiry, insisting that Britain faced a continuing threat. He seized on the bombings to bring in measures to drastically curtail free speech rights and expand the powers of the state to spy on the population. Powers were enacted to hold alleged terrorists and their supporters for long periods without charges, deport immigrants, close down mosques, and cordon off entire parts of major cities. New regional MI5 offices and regional police Counter-Terrorism Units were set up.

It is not possible to determine how much was and is really known about the perpetrators of the terror attacks in London, but a full inquiry is necessary. Such an investigation has to be entirely independent of the British government and probe the underlying causes of the bombings and their foundation in the Blair government’s participation in Washington’s illegal war against Iraq.

Related posts:

1. Taped conversation between 7 July bombers casts doubt on MI5 account
2. MI5 ‘had six photos of 7/7 bomber’

The government issued a little-reported document this month on ID cards. It was quietly published when the home secretary Jacqui Smith announced that some volunteer members of the public in Greater Manchester would be the first to receive ID cards in November.

These are 10 things from the document, “Identity Cards Act Secondary Legislation - An Impact Assessment”, which might not be generally known:

1. The ID Cards Act 2006 imposes on citizens a duty to update information held on them on the National Identity Register (NIR). Cardholders can receive civil penalty fines if they fail to update information held about them on the NIR or notify the Identity and Passport Service if their card is lost or stolen. Citizens may also be in breach of legislation if they fail to notify a change of address within three months. It is open to the government to charge a fee for updating the register.
2. An individual’s entry on the NIR can be given to “government departments or other public sector organisations without the consent of the individual provided they [departments and agencies] have been approved to do so by parliament under secondary legislation”. Secondary legislation does not need any specific parliament approval. The power to enact it has already been given under primary legislation.
3. The Home Office will allow ID cardholders to check the information held on them on the NIR. “Right from the beginning, individuals will be able to obtain a copy of what is held on their record in line with subject access rights under the Data Protection Act.” Much information about individuals will not be on the register itself but brought together from various databases when needed.
4. The NIR will keep a record of which organisations have checked an individual’s record and when, though not the reason or the outcome. The NIR audit trail will show the “specific branch” of a bank which had made a check, for example. The Home Office says this is necessary to “help ensure that inappropriate checks are not made against the NIR”. The NIR audit may be given to HM Revenue & Customs and other government departments “only where it is necessary for the prevention or detection of serious crime”.
5. The NIR will not hold a vast amount of “new kinds of data”, but the document does not explain what this phrase means.
6. Private sector organisations may be given information from the NIR with the individual’s consent. Insurance companies may make a condition of taking out a policy that you give your consent.
7. The ID cards scheme has not been subjected to a formal privacy impact assessment (PIA), as set out by the information commissioner. The PIA would have set out the scheme’s potential privacy issues and risks, as perceived by all stakeholders. The Home Office says that there has been no full PIA because the decision to roll out ID cards “was taken before these developments” - that is the introduction of the PIA. However, the information commissioner says that a PIA can be undertaken after a project has started.
8. 8) The initial £30 fee for an ID card will be reviewed “before the high volume roll-out of identity cards begins in 2012″. The review will take into account the fact that the Identity and Passport Service must cover its costs. The costs of ID cards and passports have been combined so it is possible that fee rises for new and replacement passports will subsidise the cost of ID cards.
9. The document says recent research “shows that 71% of those interviewed trust the Identity and Passport Service to look after their personal information”. This suggests that nearly a third do not trust the government with their ID data or do not know whether to trust it - a sizeable minority.
10. The cost to the public sector and businesses of equipment to read ID cards, integrate systems with the NIR, or obtain information from the register is put at £7bn. The figure is not broken down and, as it is over 30 years, it is unlikely those in the current administration will be in government in 2039 to be accountable for the figure.

Related posts:

1. NO2ID: ID Cards are not ‘voluntary’
2. ID cards and the snooper state

The Court of Appeal has limited police powers to keep pictures of protesters in case they go on to break the law.

Judges said police had been wrong to retain pictures of a lawful arms trade activist who was not suspected of any criminal offence.

The Metropolitan Police said they acted reasonably in retaining pictures of the campaigner, Andrew Wood from Oxford.

Welcoming the judgement, Mr Wood said that the onus was now on the Met to review its retention policies.

The court has told the Met to destroy the photographs if it does not challenge the ruling in the House of Lords. The force has indicated it will not appeal.

Mr Wood argued that police had harassed him and infringed his right to privacy when he lawfully attended a company’s annual general meeting (AGM) meeting in April 2005.

Reed Elsevier, a global publisher, had become the parent company of an arms fair exhibitions organiser called Spearhead.

Mr Wood and other campaigners bought shares in Reed Elsevier so they could attend the AGM and ask directors to justify this move.

Following the meeting, Mr Wood said Metropolitan Police officers openly photographed, questioned and followed him. Police did not accuse him of breaking the law and he was not arrested.

Mr Wood said the incident had been alarming and the police quickly established he was a law-abiding member of society.

Last year the High Court agreed with the Metropolitan Police that its actions were reasonable because officers need to detect crimes that may have occurred in the past or may do so in the future.

Ruling overturned

But overturning that ruling, Lord Justice Dyson said: “The retention by the police of photographs taken of persons who have not committed an offence, and who are not even suspected of having committed an offence, is always a serious matter.

“The only justification advanced by the police for retaining the photographs for more than a few days after the meeting [attended by Mr Wood] was the possibility that the appellant might attend and commit an offence [at a later arms fair].

“Even if due allowance is made for the margin of operational discretion, that justification does not bear scrutiny …”

Lord Collins of Mapesbury added that the substantial police presence that confronted the arms campaigners had a “chilling effect” on those seeking to protest lawfully. A third dissenting judge said the Met had acted reasonably.

The judgement does not ban specialist police cameramen and photographers, known as Forward Intelligence Teams, but it does say the long-term retention of their pictures must be justified on a case-by-case basis.

Crucially, the ruling echoes a landmark privacy decision against the England and Wales DNA database at the European Court of Human Rights.

That judgement last December said police could not justify keeping forever the DNA profiles of people who were never charged with a crime.

Mr Wood welcomed the judgement saying the police would now have to review its retention policies.

“The police don’t just uphold the law - they must abide by it. They now have a duty to assess the photographs they keep,” he told the BBC.

“If there is no criminal investigation then this ruling surely means they must get rid of the image. I expect them to go through photos and test them against the law. “

Related posts:

1. Supreme Court Limits Students’ Speech Rights
2. Police seek wider DNA data powers

The Prime Minister’s Office has rebuffed a public call for a government investigation into Phorm, saying that the independent Information Commissioner’s Office is responsible for ensuring that the behavioural ad-serving technology does not contravene privacy laws.

On Tuesday, Number 10 published a response to an e-petition that had called for an investigation of Phorm’s technology by the government, and a ban on its adoption by internet service providers if it was found to breach European or British privacy laws. Phorm intercepts user data traffic to anonymously profile people and serve them adverts based on their web-browsing behaviour.

In its response, Number 10 said privacy legislation was enforced by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), adding that the ICO “is an independent body, and it would not be appropriate for the government to second-guess [ICO] decisions”.

“ICO has been clear that it will be monitoring closely all progress on this issue, and in particular any future use of Phorm’s technology,” the Prime Minister’s Office stated. “They will ensure that any such future use is done in a lawful, appropriate and transparent manner, and that consumers’ rights are fully protected.”

However, the ICO told ZDNet UK on Tuesday that while it could enforce the Data Protection Act, it had no remit to enforce other privacy laws, such as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa).

“The [intercept] issues that have been raised around Phorm are not a matter for the ICO,” assistant information commissioner Jonathon Bamford told ZDNet UK. “We have no statutory role in relation to Ripa.”

Various organisations, including the Foundation for Information Policy Research, have asserted that Phorm’s interception of user traffic, prior to anonymising the data, contravenes Ripa.

The regulatory body which oversees Ripa is the Office of Surveillance Commissioners (OSC). However, that office only oversees Ripa in relation to public authorities such as the police and intelligence services, and does not look at possible Ripa contravention by private companies. However, Bamford suggested that regulators such as OSC should monitor the private sector too.

“There’s a gap there,” said Bamford. “No-one performs the same role [as the ICO does with data protection] in relation to Ripa.”

‘Passing the buck’
Jim Killock, director of digital-rights organisation the Open Rights Group, told ZDNet UK that Number 10 was dodging the issue of scrutinising the legality of Phorm. “Clearly, the ICO doesn’t have a role in intercept,” said Killock. “Number 10 is passing the buck to an organisation which doesn’t have that responsibility, which is at best obfuscation.”

Killock added that the legality of Phorm’s service under Ripa should be examined. “You shouldn’t be intercepting data traffic without the clear consent of all users involved,” said Killock. “If you intercept a communication, everyone involved should give clear, informed consent.”

Privacy legal expert Vanessa Barnett, a partner at Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP, told ZDNet UK on Tuesday that “ultimately only a judge can decide” the legality of Phorm’s service.

“Under Ripa, interceptions are lawful if the interceptor has reasonable grounds for believing that consent has been given. That consent must be freely given, specific and informed,” said Barnett. “And that’s the rub: have the individuals been made sufficiently aware of what is being intercepted, and have nonetheless decided it’s OK to be monitored and profiled in this way?”

However, Marc Burgess, senior vice president of technology at Phorm, told ZDNet UK on Tuesday that Phorm’s interception of user traffic, prior to anonymisation, was legal.

“[Phorm] is definitely legal under Ripa,” said Burgess. “Users must give their consent before they can use the service.”

Burgess added that the definition of ‘intercept’ in Ripa means making the contents of a communication available to other people or organisations, but that Phorm’s intercept devices sat on service provider networks and performed filtering before making any data available for scrutiny.

“This information is passing through [sealed] black boxes,” he said. “It’s a filtering and whitelisting process.”

An inquiry into possible regulation of the ISP industry was launched by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Communications (apComms) in April. The government committee is to examine issues including behavioural advertising and deep packet inspection.

Related posts:

1. Government replies to EU legal challenge on Phorm
2. Privacy campaigners pressure web firms to boycott Phorm

The Home Office has confirmed there is still no timetable for the rollout of ID card readers, without which carrying out effective ID checks is impossible.

So even though the government is continuing to foist the cards on foreigners, airside workers at City of London and Manchester airports and pilots, there is no way to check the cards are genuine. Official advice is to flick the cards with a fingernail because they make a distinctive noise.

Home Office minister Phil Woolas told the House of Commons yesterday that there was no schedule for the distribution of ID card readers to police stations, border entry points, job centres or local authorities.

He said: “In time, card readers will be made available so that the cardholder’s biometric and biographical features can be checked against the card, although a timetable for their introduction has not been established.”

The cards are already being handed to foreign nationals with leave to stay, and the lucky people of Manchester will get the chance to hand over £60 to get their hands on a card from later this year. Wacky Jacqui Smith has previously claimed that people can’t wait for ID cards.

The point of the cards was to provide biometric checks of identity. That information is held on a chip within the card - without a reader there is no way to access this information.

Anyone using the card to identify someone is advised to flick the card to check how it sounds. If they still have concerns there is a phoneline with further advice.

It emerged in February that the government was pushing ahead with issuing cards despite the lack of readers.

Tory leader David Cameron has promised to scrap the scheme if elected. ®

Related posts:

1. IPS leak suggests ID card fingerprint chop
2. Taxpayers face paying millions in compensation for identity card project