History Repeating Itself (Labour and ID cards edition)

[andrewducker]

I see we're back at the "Labour attempt to introduce a mandatory ID card" stage of history*.

My feeling last time, was that the main problem that they always have is that they *start* with the cards being mandatory.

If you start with "Here is a thing that makes your life much easier, that you can carry about if you like." then that will get you 85% of the way there. And then, once you have a voluntary ID card that's not causing any problems for anyone, and that 85% of the population is using to make their life easier, *then* you move in and say "The only people who don't carry an ID card are weirdos and troublemakers, and they're causing friction in the system, we could make it all run more smoothly if only they *had* to carry one."

But no, they always try to go instantly from "Nobody has an ID card." to "Everyone must carry one at all times." - which forms a coalition of all sorts of people from across the political spectrum, and ends up being far more politically costly to them than if they'd just boiled their frog slowly.

(None of which should be taken as me taking a position on ID cards. I'm just constantly bemused by their inability to get things done by trying to rush them through in the most authoritarian manner possible.)

*Younger readers may not remember the fuss in 2006 (repealed in 2011)

Comments

[calimac]

We've done it in the slow-boil method here in the US. It's driving licenses. First you had to carry them while driving in case police stopped you. Then it was expected you'd have them all the time. Then they became mandatory, with passports the only alternative, for air travel, and were expected to be shown to police or other authorities at any time. Now even a passport won't save you from summary deportation.

[cmcmck]

And it would be a certain way to screw over trans people as they'd insist on 'birth sex' to make sure we were issued with the wrong one.

[channelpenguin]

I don't see a need for gender on an ID card at all. Or a driving licence. Assuming there's a photo+ maybe biometrics.

[cmcmck]

Nor do I but it won't stop them using this as another attack line.

[channelpenguin]

Sadly, you are right, I'm sure they will miss no opportunity to use ID cards as another stick to beat you so with. I am sorry for everyone who is affected by that nonsense. It's all such a waste of time and energy and makes no actual sense at all. And it's strange how people fall for it. Even people you would not expect.

[juan_gandhi]

This is a beautiful story.

[channelpenguin]

We have ID cards here in Germany that you are supposed to carry. Nobody seems to much care. They just carry them.

[andrewducker]

Yup. Pretty much all of Europe does, without it being a big issue.

[cmcmck]

I had one when I lived in Belgium but there no one questioned my right to being the sex I am.

[mellowtigger]

I've been intending to write on this topic for months. My own state of Minnesota lagged far behind the national average with its delays of implementing REAL ID here. I don't have one (yet, but eventually probably). The problem I have with it is that it's not really a valid identification card, no more than the driver license I have now.

Can it be used for proof of hiring eligibility? No. It is insufficient by itself.
Can it save you from being jailed during immigration sweeps? No. Someone with a REAL ID has already been jailed.

I assume this push has come as a complicated way of siphoning taxpayer dollars into some lawmaker's private hands via corporations that provide the government a way to solve this lawmaker-created problem. And I definitely need to get myself a tinfoil-hat icon for my lack-of-faith in my current govt. I assume that corruption is behind almost everything these days.

[daryl_wor]

I dig this b/c it basically says: Impractical, there is another word for that but I can't remember which.

[redbird]

As calimac said, they've done something similar in the U.S. I didn't used to have to show ID to pick up prescriptions, and now it's required for some prescriptions.

I'm not sure when they started asking for ID at doctor's offices, and I think that's driven by the weird way healthcare is paid for here: if some random person sees a doctor claiming to be me, the insurance company won't pay for that.

I've been in the habit of carrying my state ID card for years, because it's easier than remembering to grab it in contexts where I expect to need it. I started carrying my passport card after Trump was inaugurated.

Also, since this is the United States, it isn't one policy, it's 50-odd. ID for flying is federal, but I think it's the state of Massachusetts that decided I have to show ID to pick up my gabapentin.

[jack]

We do have it a lot of the time with driving licences, but I guess it still *feels* different to have an ID card.

I guess maybe they think it'll be popular with some segment of voters, so are emphasising it not minimising it??

My own opinion is torn. The more society uses databases, the more inevitable it is too avoid having some standard ID something. And lots of countries do seem fine with it. But I still dislike the idea.

I guess there's also a gulf between being mandatory to REGISTER for an ID card and mandatary to CARRY an ID card.

[andrewducker]

I think it's also the joining of things into a connected database. There is no mandatory database of all people in the country at the moment. And someone seeing your driving license can't easily connect it to your tax data (for instance).

Having a unique mandatory government ID would definitely be a necessary part of joining things up.

[channelpenguin]

Everyone over 16 has an NI number.

(But, like me, Andrew at least will know from our professional experience, they aren't straightforwardly unique...)

[jack]

Yeah, I think the database is almost more important, the ID cards are just the physical manifestation of it.

ETA: I guess there's also a difference whether you're required to have an officially recorded photo.

[wildeabandon]

I have to say I find the idea of it being done with driving licences a lot more disturbing. I mean, people complain about the cost of passports, but I imagine learning to drive is at least an order of magnitude more, and it just seems like such a bizarre thing to force people to do.

[channelpenguin]

Here in Germany, getting a driving licence is HUGELY expensive. You MUST have X hours of lessons with a professional (also X hours of classroom lessons and pass a theory test), and those lessons are the ONLY way you are allowed to learn or drive a car - not like in the UK, where you can drive a car as a learner with anyone with a licence sitting next to you.

[bens_dad]

IIUC at least some US states will issue a drivers permit which permits you to drive zero classes of vehicle. In the UK you can get a provisional driving licence which allows you to learn to drive.
Both of these function as ID without you having to prove that you are competent to be in charge of a vehicle.

[andrewducker]

If it helps I've used my provisional driving license to fly on several occasions. Still can't drive.

[hairyears]

The USA has a bizarre 'solution' to the existence of people who cannot drive, but need a driving licence to exist in a society where it is the de facto mandatory ID card: the blind are issued driving licenses marked 'Non-Driving'.

[rmc28]

Provisional driving licences have photo etc, I know at least one person who got their provisional licence specifically and only for use as ID, and has no intention of learning to drive. I think my 18yo may be planning to get one because they (gasp) now drink alcohol and sometimes get asked for proof of age.

[jack]

Ugh, I'm sorry, I partly meant just that a big majority of people have driving licences, and expect to carry them by default whenever they might need ID, and various things are a hassle if you don't, which is already quite like the step AD was suggesting they start with, but apparently not quite close enough to make it politically positive.

And I wasn't actually intending to say so, but I was thinking that if they did want ID cards, it might be practical to extend the existing infrastructure of photos and renewals etc but change "driver/provisional" to "driver/provisional/non-driver". (I wasn't imagining everyone would need to learn to drive. Although ironically it is also pretty common to assume people can drive. It would still seem ridiculously Kafkaesque to require people to learn to drive, but my baseline for "too Kafkaesque to be real" has all been screwed up for a while now...)

ETA: It's not directly related, but other non-driver friends have been inconvenienced when flying internally, voting, buying beer, etc, from not having a *convenient* ID. Either needing to bring a passport and risk losing it. Or bringing something less standard than a driving license. And some of those (especially voting) I think shouldn't require ID. But probably some things need some ID, and I don't know what should be the default. I guess an optional drivers-license-equivalent like proof of age card, but then that does come to a very similar place even if it's not legally mandatory.

[wildeabandon]

Well, today I have been reminded that provisional driving licenses exist, and learned that they function just as well as full ones from an ID perspective. I do just use my passport for basically everything, which does mean that there's an ADHD tax when I lose it, but somewhat surprisingly that's only happened to me once.

[marymac]

It's the bit where they'll inevitably try and charge for it that will mightily piss off even the people who don't mind the idea.