This ID card promises to have fewer guarantees of data integrity and security with the current stated policies of the government and ALP, Evan Thorley, to offshore government IT functions. It has been shown that when an organisation signs an outsourcing contract they lose control of the human resources who handle their data.

I was not surprised yesterday when a neighbour's young daughter was telling me how she was required to provide a host of personal details (tenancy application) and a photocopy of her driver's licence berfore a real estate agent would let her look at a flat for rent. Not to rent the flat, this was the 'price' of a look.

Recently in a current affairs show there was a story about the drivers licences of patrons being scanned into a computer for admission.

Federal government departments permit contractors to walk into their offices with storage devices and in some cases laptop PCs.

I can't believe that the government and the community are really concerned about fraud and identity theft - but they should be.

I agree with the author that bureaucrats and contractors hve demonstrated time and time again that they can play fast and loose with the data they gather.

This should be seen for what it is, another blow against the personal freedom of all Australians. The government and those who promote them think that we will accept anything if they can create a climate of fear, but I fear a draconian Australian government more than someone with a towel wrapped around their head. It does not matter what arguement is put up if the watchers are untrustworhty. Who should trust the man that made being Australian worthless.

Whats really wrong with an ID Card anyway?

Why not be supporting the government and demanding proper protections?

Privacy? There are so many ways for the government to track you. This scheme is designed to save the taxpayer money.

I'm all for it.

gw

I've been wondering what happens if the RFID chip in the card fails. If you present it to claim a Medicare rebate but the computer can't scan it, can you still claim the rebate? Is there a number on the face that can be typed in to make a claim? What happens if someone repeatedly has card failure after card failure? Will they be penalised? After all, it's simple enough to overload and destroy an RFID chip without damaging whatever it's embedded in. And I absolutely refuse to carry around an RFID chip that can be scanned without my knowledge as I am walking around.

I find it ironic that my children and I spent years trapped inside a regime dreaming and fighting to get back to Australia.

There, my phone was tapped, mail read, police were empowered to to enter one's house at will, detention without trial was endemic, and I.D. cards ensured that every movement was tracked.

By the time we arrived here all we had was contained in the back-packs we carried and the next 7 years have been a hell of poverty and humiliation - but we were free. It made it all worth while. Aussie friends, shocked and horrified at our saga, murmured soothingly "Never mind, you're safe now."

I noticed how easy it was here to slip in regulations allowing surveillance methods "to counteract terrorism". Detention without trial followed with many supporting it and the familiar mantra "If you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to fear". It's being repeated now with the issue of ID cards which, as the author said, will pass unimpeded into law in this country of law abiding citizens.

No-one seems to realise that the laws we have given up so mutely were, in fact, the laws which ensured that those of us who had indeed done nothing wrong could guarantee we had nothing to fear. Without them to protect us the fact that we have done nothing wrong is not even important under law any more.

I too had done nothing wrong in that other place when I was thrown into a cell. That was what made it so terrifying and hopeless: I had no recourse to a law which protected my innocence.

The whole unwieldy edifice of Law, fought for since Magna Carta, refined through philosophers like Locke, died for by Levellers and idealists, is to Protect the Innocent.

How blindly, smugly and unthinkingly we have, in the past few years, undone a remarkable edifice of civil liberties which took centuries to construct

Nice words Romany. I don't think I've ever heard my foremost concerns expressed in such a simple yet eloquent manner.

Romany, your story is quite frightening.

I too have heard people say things like "If you've done nothing wrong," or "if you've got nothing to hide, then you've got nothing to fear"

It's these catch phrases, usually parroted by idiots, that send chills down my spine.

You do have things to fear:
- being falsly incriminated
- having your personal information abused or put into wrong hands
- being victimised for being in a minority group or political opposition to the government.
The list could go on.

This would be paranoia if it weren't for the fact that our government cannot be trusted and politicians in general have questionable ethics, so not only are these consequences possible but they're also highly probable.

I'm not going to wax lyrical about my opposition to a card like this. No amount of 'taxpayer savings' could even begin to counteract the evils inherent in these sorts of ideas.

Nor am I going to mkae any comment on the government's ability to keep our data safe. Organizations with far more to lose in relation to data theft (banks, credit agencies, etc) have had so many security failures that it is almost a daily occurance.

Instead, I'm interested to know how many people know of the one primary exclusion in Australia's personal information privacy legislation?

I work in the IT industry and, following the introduction of the new provisions in 2001, attended a briefing held by the Privacy Commissioner.

There we were told that, in an intriguing example of bi-partisan support, the Australian Federal Government decided that political parties were exempt from requirements to adhere to the provisions of the Act. This was against the recommendations of the Commissioner.

Interesting, eh? The same people who, for their own purposes exempt themselves from the requirement to honour personal information, are now telling us to trust them not to misuse the powers inherent in a national ID - oops, sorry Access- card.

Nope- I'm not buying it.

The ID card is long overdue; I personally know of people on Centre Link benefits but are not on an electoral roll. How many people know of the scam where a labour contractor uses his or a friends tax file number for casual labour he employs. The casual labour is usually on Centre Link benefits or are illegal immigrants. How many people exploit the system with multiple identities or make good livings through repeated insurance fraud or tax evasion.

UNLESS YOU ARE INVOLVED IN SOME SORT OF SCAM OR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY YOU HAVE NOTHING FEAR FROM AN ID CARD.

From what I have seen the only protesters are criminals, terrorists and washy Civil Libertarians who are often lawyers who see diminishing opportunity with the ID card.

Sille: Romany's post pretty much pointed out the flaws in the "Nothing to hide, don't worry" argument.
You'll have to do better than that to convince me.

Despite the usual fears spread by human "rights" activists, only the guilty need fear ID cards.

Ironically, it is the fifth-columnist Australians who have openly supported continuing immigration of all odds and sods - one reason why silly governments now have to think about ID cards - who are the ones shrieking the loudest about government's belated attempts to patch up some of the damage they have done with their open borders, illegal entry type immigration free for all.

If you think that the need to identify and track people is an infringement of your liberties, just remember that your lack of interest and she'll be right mate attitudes have brought it about.

Your lack of interest in democracy and its processes will eventually see democracy lost. An ID card for all citizens is only the start. And, you have only yourselves to blame.

I agree with Sille, leigh etc.

The thing is with Romany's story, and Donnie's concerns, is that all this can happen anyway.

Think the government can't track you?
Try driving licence, medicare card, credit cards, bank cards, library cards etc.

Think your data is safe?
Identity theft is rampant across all forms of identification. The more forms of identification there are, the more opportunity there is to get your hands on it. If you were really that bothered you would never throw away a reciept or bill, only ever pay with cash, and basically not use a computer in case it got compromised.

Being victimised for being in a minority group or political opposition to the government?
So this can't happen now, but would if there was an ID card? Get real. The government doesn't need an ID card to know if you are a member of the ALP, or a communist or whatever.

Lets face it, the people who have most to fear are the people who have a vested interest in NOT being tracked by the government.

If the card reduces benefit fraud, or reduces illegal immigration, or maybe makes it easier for me to prove I am who I say i am, then it can only be a good thing.

This is the future. Its going to happen. If the government wants to do something bad to you, they don't need an ID card.

In terms of security I'm interested to see what the government can come up with. I would imagine they have got people who know a bit more about security than you or me working on this.

gw

"UNLESS YOU ARE INVOLVED IN SOME SORT OF SCAM OR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY YOU HAVE NOTHING FEAR FROM AN ID CARD."

"only the guilty need fear ID cards"

"the people who have most to fear are the people who have a vested interest in NOT being tracked by the government."

Polly want a cracker?

gw, you have a point, the access card just puts all the eggs in one basket and makes it much much easier to "poach".

The issue here is not really about the card itself but really about whether giving the government more control and ability to monitor our lives is going to infringe on or improve our rights and liberties. If we had a government that was totally trustworthy and there was no way the card system would be abused, i probably wouldn't have a problem with the Big Brother mottos echoed by Sille, Leigh and gw. But unfortunately i am quite disillusioned and very wary of our elected representatives and do not believe they are that trustworthy. Do you?

Sorry, human nature is fallen and I do not trust the Government - any government.

We have had it so well we fail to heed warnings from people like Romany. I knew an elderly man who had been in the dutch underground during WW2. He was a wonderful man with a great family, but a bit rough around the edges, too. When gun control registration came in 10 years ago or so, do you think he would register his guns? No way.

"Why not" you may ask? Because he has seen it before and didn't like where it ended up.

Romany and others have seen it before. We should learn from them and not forget man's inclination to use and abuse.

Freedom is costly. Are Australia's citizens prepared to pay the cost?

I would very much like to hear the opposition leaders view as to whether he also agrees with the ID card idea or otherwise.

Nope. Still not persuaded that getting rid of existing forms of identification and centralising into one is in any way taking your freedom away.

I don't trust governments particularly, but I fail to see how not an having an ID card makes it any less likely they would do something bad to you if they really wanted.

Rather than say 'no card', how about we insist on legal safeguards, transparency and security. We have passports, driving licences, medicare cards.

What difference does one more Card make, if it reduces crime, illegal immigration and fraud?

Lets look at some countries that do have national ID cards; Germany, France, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain.

Not really hotbeds of discrimination are they?

gw

i like the way bronwyn bishop has applied her 'nazi test' to this card and it failed because it would have made hitlers job easier. its probably the only sensible thing i've ever heard uttered from her.

i think most people would be rather alarmed to know what 'notes' the government have on people already, and this is completely seperate from anything ASIO might have. an elected member has for the majority of people in his/her electorate, notes about this person is like, which was they are more likely to vote, things they have been involved in (signed petitions, letters written etc) - and there is minimal security for access to these files.

there are many people exercising their democratic right by protesting against the behaviour of this completely untrustworthy and increasingly authoritarian government that seems so hell bent on removing our rights, curtailing our freedoms and lowering our levels of privacy - how long before we see more 'peace activists' like scott parken locked up as 'security threats' with no access to the actual charges against them? he hadnt done anything wrong either and was never charged with anything, but it didnt stop him being locked up and deported (at his own expense too).

is anyone actually so naive to believe that things couldnt get a lot worse from what they are already??

Is there any way a mere mortal will know what the micro chip will record, or do we just take the word of honest John, of children overboard fame.

Mylakhrion,

The apparent double standard with respect to privacy of personal information may be even more stark, and indeed more sinister, than you have indicated.

Over the last twenty years or so, privacy concerns have been advanced as one of the reasons for not printing electoral rolls, historically documents available to, and for purchase by, the general public. These printed electoral rolls were mostly produced at around the middle of the life of a Commonwealth parliament, and constituted a form of insurance against enrolment based electoral impropriety. The safeguard existed in the availability, rather than in the restriction, of such information to the public.

The last Commonwealth 'mid-term' electoral roll was printed in 1982.

Let me be quite clear. I am not talking about the extremely limited distribution printed 'reference rolls' available only to members and Senators containing the names of electors as at the LAST general elections, nor to the tightly controlled printed certified lists actually used in polling places to mark off vote claims on election day. I am talking about the essentially unalterable, widely distributed, printed 'mid-term' rolls which many fondly, but mistakenly, believe are still held in Post Offices and Court Houses across the nation.

You now seem to be telling us that information of potentially great importance to the general public is available on a privileged basis (and format?) only to political parties. Can you provide specific examples of the sort of use of personal information by political parties that has been exempted from the provisions of the privacy legislation?

What's the betting that, even if this 'Access' card is foist upon us, it certainly WONT be demanded to be presented when the adult citizens amongst us (compulsorily) turn up to vote on election days! Its one redeeming feature, its potential to prevent easy impersonation at vote claim, if the history of the 1987 double dissolution Federal elections on this very issue is anything to go by, will remain unrealized.

Rest easy. Either the 'Access Card' will pass into oblivion, or we will be getting non-compulsory voting very soon!

I think Autralians give up their personal information far too easily,

Why do we have to give our name and address when we purchase tickets to tonight's performance at our local regional performing arts centre?

Why do I need to give my date of birth and gender when I enter a competition? Is an astrologer going to put a hex on me.

Why do I need to tell Optus or Citylink my date of birth before they will answer a generalised query or send me information?

Why can't we take shampoo on flights to the US when 16 year old boys can board planes in Los Angeles with 2 samurai swords? Are we a tad too sensitive?

All volunteers for the Commonwealth Games were subjected to police checks, were searched before entry into every building and venue - sometimes 8 times a day. The searchers were sometimes the Army - thats OK but often the searchers were Indians who didn't understand Melbourne English who were easily bribed by food and embarassed to be searching their elders. The journalists nicknamed the Indian security guards "Al Quaeda". Indians were hired from Delhi because there were not enoough trained security guards available for the 6 weeks of Commonwealth Games duty. An Australian security guard has to be a certain size, have passed a TAFE security course and police check. The Indians did not have anything like similar physical stature, qualifications or experience.
In fact security at the Commonwealth Games was toned down because initially access to the venue was for named personnel for a specified shift starting at a particular time - late comers not admitted. When the lists were not printed for the start of shift on day 2 that system was dispensed with.

Any one who has had unauthorised transactions on their credit card or had their wallet stolen knows just how difficult it is to establish that you didn't spend the money or leave your PIN with your card? Banks are a lot more customer focussed than CENTRELINK officers determined to save the government surplus from low lifes like you!

Forrest

The point I was making was in regards to how personal information is kept- not necessarily what information they have access to.

Under the Australian privacy act, organizations have to comply with 11 principles (see http://www.privacy.gov.au/publications/ipps.html). These cover things like having to justify why you have the information; whether or not a citizen can request what details you do have; and making processes available for allowing citizens to correct the information.

According to the briefing we had (and I'll freely admit that it was a few years ago and things might have changed), with cross-floor support and against the advice of the privacy commissioner, the Fed Govt exempted political parties from having to comply with these regulations.

So, in essence, political parties can amass any information on you, regardless of their need for such information, they do not have to disclose that they have it, you can't demand that they show you said information and how they keep it and update it is their business.

Nice case of feather-bedding if you ask me. Returning to my point of before, if they care so little for personal privacy that they can justify exempting themselves from legislation, how can we possibly trust them when they say that the Access card will not be used to their own ends.

What concerns me about this card is that there is no technological limitation to the identification uses it can be put to- there are only legislative limits. And as Australia has no firm document protecting our civil liberties (such as a Bill of Rights) then we don’t seem to have much protection from government abuse.

GW- just because data/identity theft exists, I don’t see why we should be making things easier by consolidating all our information into a single document. At least now, a thief needs multiple documents to steal my identity- not just one

And, after a flood of Access Card forgeries by criminal organisations, and privateers, the Govt will tell us that the SMART Card is to easily lost/stole/forged and will want to bring in a system currently available internationally - a painless air injection under the skin, depositing a silicon chip with all our personal info - it has been available in the USA for well over a decade - at 24 hr medical clinics.

Strangely though, it can ONLY be applied to the back of the right hand, and includes our very own personal bar code - the system that uses the "0110" binary code for the number 6. ie one "0110" at each end to switch the scanner on or off and one in the middle, as we see on most goods we purchase today. (ie the long strokes at both ends and in the middle of most barcodes)

Why "0110" - well it cannot be mistaken by the barcode scanner as it reads "0110" either way round, as well as upside down and inside out - simple! "666" - the number of a man by which no one will be able to buy or sell without the "mark." It may well be later than we think !

Yeah, you can laugh at me, but I know !

It is not hard to build up a false identity. It was a lot easier 30 years or more ago but it can still be done. If you change your place of employment regularly spurious tax file numbers will allow you to collect centre Link benefits while working but you must keep moving or be in a position where you can use another identity. A scam that troubles me is where casual labour uses the tax file number of a contractor. The contractor supplies labour for say $20/hour but pays the labour $12/hour. The casual labour is happy as they can stay below the horizon or continue to collect Centre Link benefits.

The smart card is a solution seeking a purpose.

This situation is now common in government where increasingly the agenda is being driven by large contractors who not only have the ear of policicians but probably have a solid 'monkey' grip of nether regions as well. Such contractors are already siphoning off many millions of dollars a year that were originally intended for clients. Private contractors have become dependent on ever-increasing government business. It is all done in the name of 'efficiency' of course and they can 'prove' that too (but of course!).

I have seen for instance, personal data of thousands of people being used to pre-test IT systems and with the printouts being discarded in wheelie bins in a public place to be collected by the ordinary garbage service. The data included the usual personal details, government benefits and banking details and no, it was not Centrelink. Fraudsters know to 'mine' waste bins for personal information.

On a daily basis managers of both public and private organisations breach the confidentiality of client records for claimed business purposes or for their own convenience.

Taking it from the other end, what 'client' of government or of a private company for that matter, has been greeted with full cooperation and assistance when trying to identify and obtain copies of information held pertaining to them? The answer is that public and private managers alike are very resistent and regard such requests as impositions upon them because they regard the information as 'theirs' not 'yours'. They are strongly motivated to avoid embarrassment through review of their decisions. Also, they are aware the data held might not be correct or is being used (for a purpose) outside of the original stated purpose.

As regards the 'new' ID card, there has already been misrepresentation of its purpose because its design deliberately assists later 'enhancement' for flexibility in mining and using the data.

Finally, the government talks big about security however a sure-fire way of creating a security problem is to put the information in one place and label it as secret.

NO CARD-NO WAY!
The number of violent men who have gained access to ex-spouses, just belting some, killing others, along with the children, has not been mentioned. Yet it is far more common than most of us can bear to think about. One card is simply playing into the hands of these men, and it will be a godsend to them, enabling them to track the whereabouts of those they wish to 'punish' by using one data-base so much more simple. How convenient. I wonder who the Lobby Group is who is pressuring Mr Howard to introduce this one card? One can but ask.
Arcticdog

If we think of the Access Card, ID card whatever you wish to call it as a way for a person to identify themselves rather than as a way for the government or others to identify them then the "solution" to the privacy issue is obvious. Let us have an Access Card but let us NOT have a government database behind it. That is, give people a way of creating their own Access Card that they control, own and issue from their own database about themselves. It can be done and is part of the world wide move to Identity 2.0 Internet standard which gives control of online data to individuals. There is no need to create the very expensive government Access card infrastructure to achieve the same result. As someone has suggested why not make Medicare cards and other existing cards more secure but where the identification aspect of the card is under the control of the individual.

Ok, just how does the government decide who gets one of these new fangled cards then? We already know there are more tax file numbers than people and more medicare cards floating about than people.

They can not determine who exactly is real and who isn't already. Unless they finger/ iris/ retina scan everyone when they give them a card and cross match it with the scans of everyone that already has one I don't think they can ensure that there is one card per person in the country. SO there goes the anti terrorist thing.

Why do we need a card with everything on it that my Drivers licence has? Whay can't we just use those then?

Oh and as far as data safety goes, I live by this rule;

If they can make it then there's some 15 year old sitting in his bedroom that can break it.

Nita it can be done.

You now prove who you are in the "real world" when you need to by producing documentation of relationships with organisations and finding people who know you to vouch for you. Imagine you can create an electronic document of the fact that you have relationships that have been verified by the other parties. You do not keep any information about the relationship only that it exists. To prove who you are you ask those people with whom you have the relationships to provide whatever information is required by another party for them to trust you.

OK it sounds complex but it is what we do in the "real world" and in the electronic world we can automate most of the processes so that we do the identification easily everytime we need to do it and so the government does not need to keep records of our identity only the fact that we exist. Each government department knows us by a different number. Each organisation knows us by a different number.

It is simple and inexpensive to do.

the predicament of transgender people and people with intersex conditions has received inadequate consideration in this access card bill,

the sex requirement should be deleted, its sex discrimination against intersex people