(UK) ID cards to cost £300 per person

[Newsjock]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1494944,00.html

Jamie Doward, social affairs editor
Sunday May 29, 2005
The Observer

The government's plans to introduce identity cards were dealt a body blow last night after it emerged the true cost of the scheme could top £18 billion, more than triple the official estimate.

The figure has been calculated by experts at the London School of Economics, who have spent months producing one of the most authoritative analyses of the scheme.

... Last week the Home Office issued a report which estimated that, over the next decade, the cost of running the scheme, in conjunction with a new biometric passport system, would be £5.8bn. Because the Treasury has insisted the scheme must be self-financing, this works out at an average cost of £93 to each card holder.

But, according to the LSE's analysis, a draft section of which has been obtained by The Observer, the true cost of implementing and running the scheme, will be between £12bn and £18bn. This could make the average cost of a card as high as £300 to every adult, unless government departments are prepared to shoulder some of the financial burden.

more

[lovuian]

1. OUCH!!! Nothing like letting Brits pay for their own markings!!!

this is going to be a tough sell!!!

[Journeyman]

2. Let's hope the governors of the many states. . .

do an equally thorough analysis with equally disturbing results.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

3. I hope this finally puts the boot into this ID card nonsense

The £5.8 billion the government set aside for this project would be better spent in other areas - or even spent on paying off the national debt.

[Rainscents]

4. Our own ID card that just passed, government wants States to pay for it.

Who do you think is going to pay for the ID card? You and I. States can't afford it, so, people have to.

[TahitiNut]

5. "unless government ... prepared to shoulder some of the financial burden"?

Let's see ... £300 to every adult, if and only if "every adult" pays and does the legwork. First of all, I've never seen 'government' shoulder financial burden without adding to the burden... and that "burden" is paid by the taxpayers in any event. The only difference I see is the fee-based burden-sharing is regressive. While we might argue (speciously) that each life is somewhat equally threatened by the "security vulnerabilities" this crap purports to address, it goes without saying that financial interests are threatened proportionate to the size of those interests. It should be obvious that the costs should be borne under the government distribution of costs to taxpayers, as imperfect as it is. The question is: Why not just pool the £18bn to cover financial losses? Isn't this possibly a "cure" that costs more than the "problem"?

[sintax]

6. What is that

in dollars? About $500? I'm rusty on my exchange rates. A nickels too much. It's here folks in every sector of The Matrix. Avoid It.

[JawJaw]

7. £300?

A small price to pay for security, right?

well, not according to an article in the current issue of "New Statesman" magazine

“Public opinion likes the idea of ID cards because it seems like the ultimate solution to all known problems,” says Brian Gladman, retired director of strategic electronic communications at the Ministry of Defence. “But actually, the way this bill is designed enables a police state. You’re not going to be allowed to opt out of having an ID card, the linked databases make detailed tracking feasible, and a system with this combination of complexity and scale is way beyond the state of the art. It won’t be reliable or safe. Anybody with access to the database will be able to target anybody. It’s horrendous what you’ll be able to do.”

I feel safer already.....

And the likes of EDS, Siemens etc (who have done so much to promote the effective use of PUBLIC money on crock-of-shite IT projects) will be laughing all the way to the bank!