Following on from the widely reported scandal of the missing personal details of 25 million people and the backlash that this has inaugurated against the UK governments soon to be implemented ID card policy, I decided it was high time to meditate deeply on this matter.

In principle I was vaguely opposed to ID cards believing in the anarchist/libertarian concept of the liberty of the self, which opposes any intrusive governmental control over the details of your identity.

Yet two small qualms kept preventing me from an outright opposition to the idea (believing in vain that a sensible compromise could be reached). The first temptation came from my inner librarian who said “would’nt it be a good idea to have all your personal data centralised and organised in one neat database and card?” – thus preventing the countless piles of forms that need to be completed when any business is being conducted with government agencies. The second voice came from my inner nationalist “wouldn’t an ID card be helpful for counter-terrorism?” This was a strange position (for a revolutionary like me); but not being inclined towards Islamic fundamentalism (although I seek a greater understanding of its roots and development), and being repulsed by mass killings of the sort that occured on 9/11 and 11/7 and those planned but foiled on other occasions, I felt that possibly a national identity card of the variety used in the second world war could be of use to enhance our general security.

But this inner dilemma, politically opposed to ID cards yet pragmatically pre-disposed to supporting the notion, made me feel very uncomfortable. Therefore I did what many philosophers are prone to do (thus demonstrating the family resemblance between philosophy, law and science) and I sought advice in historical precedent. One of the phrases commonly bandied around by the supporters of ID cards are “the innocent would have nothing to fear.” Thus dismissing the opponents as being either in possession of a guilty conscience, or of being paranoid. But, I reasoned, such a defence of ID cards presupposes that the information they contain would be used in an ‘ethical’ manner by the government of the day. This further supposes that the government would have the best and selfless intentions towards its citizens. It finally supposes that the government would not contemplate using the information for the purposes of self-preservation.

Now, although by no means would I describe the current government as being totalitarian, or fascist, or authoritarian (though it is creeping ever closer), could I with confidence assume this to be the case in the future? Of course I cannot! At this point I recalled a history paper I read once concerning the super-efficient manner in which the Nazi’s succeeded in rounding up undesirables (particularly the Jewish communities) within Germany and the occupied countries. The method involved a systematic organisation of information, using punch cards and sorting systems. The information was acquired using census returns and data from Church registries, government records, tax returns, council records etc. The technology used was a punch card machine (a precursor to the computer) designed and manafactured by the European subsidiary companies of IBM! (An allegation of involvement that the major information technology company has never refuted).

The conclusion to my meditation then was quite logical. The seemingly innocent machinery of bureacracy, and the systematic collection of seemingly unimportant bits of personal information when placed in the hands of those who would do anything to preserve their power, or to further their own political ends, rapidly loses all vestiges of innocence.

Ironically whilst watching Oliver Stones Comandante, a documentary about Cuban Communist Fidel Castro, I was reminded of a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.