8. PRINCIPALES ASPECTOS EN LA DIRECCIÓN DE LA EJECUCIÓN 156
8.7 Ejecución de la obra
8.7.4 Realización de los micropilotes
The United Kingdom represents an interesting case study with its alternating adoption of, and rejection of national IDs. It is unusual within Europe for not having a national ID.96 This situation has not always been the case as the United Kingdom had two previous experiences with national ID’s prompted by war related considerations.
During World War II, for example, the United Kingdom enacted the National Registration Act of 1939, which required all residents to carry an identity card for the duration of the war “emergency.”97
Its ambivalence regarding a national ID system was most recently manifested in the government’s actions surrounding the Identity Act of 2006 (Identity Act).98 The concept behind the Identity Act was to link the individual to a biometric identifier in the form of fingerprints, and in turn, link that information to the National Identity Register.99 The United Kingdom started issuing IDs in 2009.100 However, it repealed the law less than two years later through passage and enactment of the Identity Documents Act on January 21, 2011.101 The repeal was a consequence of the 2010 national elections, when
95 Keith Breckenridge, “The Elusive Panopticon: The HANIS Project and the Politics of Standards in South Africa,” in Playing the Identity Card Surveillance, Security and Identification in Global Perspective, ed. Colin J. Bennett and David Lyon (London; New York: Routledge, 2008), 287.
96 David Wills, “The United Kingdom Identity Card Scheme,” in Playing the Identity Card Surveillance, Security and Identification in Global Perspective, ed. Colin J Bennett and David Lyon (London; New York: Routledge, 2008), 163.
97 C. H. Rolph, “The English Identity Cards,” in National Identification Systems: Essays in Opposition, ed. Carl Watner and Wendy McElroy (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co., 2004), 125.
98 Wills, “The United Kingdom Identity Card Scheme.”
99 BBC, “In Full: Smith ID Card Speech,” sec. UK Politics, March 6, 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7281368.stm.
100 Home Office, “Commencement of the Identity Cards Act 2006—Issue of Identity Cards and New Criminal Offences—Publications—GOV.UK,” accessed August 25, 2013, https://www.gov.uk/govern ment/publications/commencement-of-the-identity-cards-act-2006-issue-of-identity-cards-and-new-criminal-offences.
101 Home Office, “ID Cards No Longer Valid—News Stories—GOV.UK,” January 21, 2011, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/id-cards-no-longer-valid.
a coalition of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats agreed to repeal the 2006 legislation. One notable and dramatic action taken as a consequence of the repeal was that 500 hard drives housing the identity register were shredded to fulfill the requirement of the repeal legislation that the national register be destroyed.102
The UK’s recent attempt to establish a national ID was justified by the government on the basis of two main objectives. These objectives were set forth in a speech delivered by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, on March 6, 2008.103 The speech, intended to inject new momentum into the program’s implementation, began from the premise that the National Identity Scheme was a public good, offering British citizens a new, secure, and convenient way to protect and prove their identity, and for the government, it was a way to support national security efforts.104 The Home Secretary articulated the need as follows.
We all need to be able to prove who we are - quickly, easily and securely.
And so it is essential for all of us to be able to lock our identity to ourselves and to protect its integrity. We need a way of doing so that we can trust in, and that can be trusted by others - when applying for a job, travelling abroad, or using business and government services.
As citizens, it will offer us a new, secure and convenient way to protect and prove our identity. And it will provide us with the reassurance we need that others who occupy positions of trust in our society are who they say they are as well.
As a government, we have a duty to ensure that the National Identity Scheme supports our national security, and that it provides a robust defence against those who seek to use of false identity to mask criminal or terrorist activity.105
While the justification sounds quite similar to justifications in support of REAL ID, one notable difference is that the recently repealed UK national ID effort utilized a card that
102 Electronic Frontier Foundation, “Success Story: Dismantling UK’s Biometric ID Database,”
accessed August 25, 2013,
was linked to a national identity register. The card itself was to resemble the UK driver’s license, but would hold more data, including two fingerprints and a photograph, that would be encoded on a chip.106 The unique number and the chip facilitate linkage to the national identity register that the enabling legislation authorized to maintain additional information.107 It was also anticipated that the document could be used, similar to a passport, to facilitate travel throughout Europe.108 While the card was originally envisioned as mandatory, it was later made voluntary to address critics’ concerns.109 Its rollout was to have begun with transportation sector workers, followed by others in positions of public trust, such as Olympic security workers, and those working in critical infrastructure positions, such as power plants. It was next to have been made available on a voluntary basis to young people, beginning in 2010.110 Although the rollout began in Manchester, with the intention of expanding nationwide during 2011–2012, it did not extend beyond Manchester before being cancelled.111
The opponents seized upon the program’s mandatory nature, and disputed the government’s stated reasons in support of the identity program, asserting:
[A] designer piece of plastic is not going to combat identity fraud, crime or terrorism. This intrusive scheme should be scrapped immediately.”112 Even the government’s attempts to make it mandatory for airport workers failed, with the government backing off of even that requirement. The opposition also included a privacy rights group No2ID, which proved to be a vocal opponent. In addition, national polling suggested little support for the voluntary program.113 The cost of the program was also of concern, with the London School of Economics issuing a report finding that while the concept of a national identity system was supportable, the
106 BBC, “UK’s national ID Card Unveiled,” sec. UK Politics, July 30, 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/
hi/8175139.stm.
107 Ibid.
108 Ibid.
109 Ibid.
110 BBC, “In Full.”
111 BBC, “UK’s national ID Card Unveiled.”
112 Ibid.
113 Ibid.
current proposals were not feasible with the benefits not outweighing the costs.114
Critics also raised concerns about the security of the data and its ability to be compromised. In response, the government decided to build separate databases keeping the biographic details separate, physically and technologically, from the biometric data, consisting of fingerprints and photographs.115 This measure was taken to reassure the public that it was taking measures to mitigate the risks.116 In addition, the government stressed that the information would not be susceptible to hacking because the databases would not be available online.117 It appears, however, that the United Kingdom did not anticipate and address concerns raised by critics in a timely manner, vacillated in its implementation efforts, and fumbled badly on the societal acceptance issue.