Re: LSE meeting [was: Re: "ID card plans 'criticised by MPs'"]

Roland Perry wrote:
>
> In article <200408300830.i7U8UJhc002951@...>, Brian Beesley
> <BJ.Beesley@...> writes
> >> That's what I'm suggesting. Do away with all the many and varied ways of
> >> proving your identity (I saw a poster today listing at least two dozen
> >> different things that might count) and your address, and have one ID
> >> card.
> >
> >And you're not afraid of a single point of failure i.e. some klutz manages to
> >forge your ID card and you no longer exist.
>
> But if you are the victim of that identity theft, only one agency to
> deal with top put it right.

That sounds like a bad idea. My experience suggests that the arrogance
and incompetence displayed by a service organisation is in inverse
proportion to the number of alternatives open to its customers.

This law is most evident when dealing with official bodies such as the
Inland Revenue. They know you can't choose to deal with any alternative
Inland Revenues and they can accordingly allow their arrogance and
incompetence to become unbounded.

A monolithic Identity Card Authority would doubtless behave similarly,
implying tough cookies for anybody who needs its help. Which, in a society
where an ID card is necessary for just about everything except breathing
air, means quite a few of us.

--
Pete Mitchell