While at work I was reading about the pilots for bio-metric passports and e-passports, and possible futures of identity cards. To say I was distressed at the notion is an understatement. Do not get me wrong, this is not an "omgwtfbbq! identity cards infringe human rights and privacy and hurts the wild mongoose!" deal, it's actually that they don't do enough.

See, as someone who has a slight insight, I can tell you why the phrase "Big Brother is watching you!" can never be uttered in the UK : because the UK government can not organise data.

Case in point, IT systems for areas within the UK welfare system have serious downsides. They can not easily communicate between one type of benefit and another to stop double or overclaiming (see, Hinchey v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions); they can't check automatically claims against being unemployed with Her Majesty's Revenues and Customs (the tax men who deal with your income and national insurance) or against Tax Credits claimed; Child Support and Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit are put into other agencies hands, resulting in further communication delays; they have to check with Credit Agencies under legislation and pay for it just like the normal consumer; they can not always directly liaise with police and local councils; they often get launched behind schedule, with delusions of adequacy and no back-up created.

As you can imagine, if areas of one part of the government can not 'data manage' it's own information and that of it's partners, then how likely would the government be to introduce a sweeping central agency for keeping tabs on people? Even the most paranoid MP would not even begin to consider the full potential.

There is a wealth of information logged across the UK and a variety of sources, both Governmental and private : where people are recorded on the Electoral Roll; registrars of births, deaths and marriages/civil partnerships; shares and companies details by Company House; Employment and Tax status by HMRC; local health service and NHS history, including required medication and conditions; Council Tax location with local Councils; Banking details held by Banks and Building Societies; Passport and Immigration details; Police records; Welfare history; academic history logged somewhere, even if by award bodies; credit histories.

The whole information network of the UK is compartmentalized, there is a mass of information held for every single resident, except it's scattered with no real organization. If Big Brother was watching you, he'd be squinting a bit to get you into focus.

This is where National Identity Cards could be useful, a simple enough idea for a chipped card that can provide all manner of information, from giving urgent contacts, addresses and health warnings to paramedics or police, to helping prove age to the guy behind the bar at a Wetherspoons or to hand to an employee for a virtual, truthful Curriculum Vitae.

This also negates the 'privacy' aspect, because the information is already owned somewhere, and there is always the tracking to ensure the government has a right to the information. Take qualifications, the awarding bodies are paid by schools, schools are given money and a curriculum by the government, therefore the government has invested in the qualifications and can record them.

I am fairly liberal with my view of Human Rights when used to directly protect (stopping of torture, right to a fair trial), but most of the time Human Rights arguments are fairly pointless and just give a person an excuse to find something wrong ("OMG, a fraud investigator is showing me his ID on the front step where a neighbour might see or hear! Human Rights! Invasion of Privacy! It's degrading, so Torture!").

The only real point of National Identity Cards I disagree with is the expectation for the citizen to pay for it.