The Sunday newspapers are, the weekend before the Second Reading of the Identity Cards Bill 2005 in the House of Commons on Tuesday, finally starting to acknowledge that the lack of detailed cost estimates and the blind faith in complicated, untested, multiple biometric technologies should have been enough to scupper this ill conceived and repressive Bill in the first place.
Nothing much has changed in the speed and the relative accuracy of the several biometric technologies or the potential implementation factors and costs costs in the last 3 or so years. Only now, with the imminent publication of the London School of Economics report on Monday morning, are the so called "quality" Sunday newspapers starting to acknowledge the huge problems that the NuLabour Government's scheme has faced all along.
The Independent: "Ministers plan to sell your ID card details to raise cash"
"The Independent on Sunday can today reveal that ministers have opened talks with private firms to pass on personal details of UK citizens for an initial cost of £750 each."That "initial cost of £750 each" is a bit ambiguous - presumably they mean "each company" rather than "each UK citizen". The "initial cost" to a company is more like £30,000 for the first secure connection to the centralised biometric database.
The Credit Reference Agencies talked of a transaction fee payable to the Government of around a couple of pounds per check on the National Identity Register, in their oral evidence to the Home Affairs Committee.
The Observer: "Union blow to ID card scheme
· Key staff could scupper Blair plan
· Home Office prepares for U-turn"
Unison, the UK's largest Trades Union with many Public Sector workers, joins the Transport and General Workers' Union in opposing this ID card scheme.
Where were the voices of the Trades Unions during the first Identity Cards Bill debates or during the General Election ?
Sunday Times: "Costs may force ID cards to be cheap ‘chip and pin’"
Is the Government really going to scrap "unforgeable" biometrics in favour of Chip and PIN , whilst retaining the compulsory central database ?
Why is the controversial public sector IT firm EDS being named as if it had already won a contract ?
EDS are entitled to pitch for work, but any suggestion that they have been given any contract, before a legal procurement tendering process has even begun, would be an utter scandal, and smacks of corruption.