The Guardian 26 January, 2005
Foot-in-the-door ID
Peter Mac
The Howard government is planning to introduce a personal identification process known as a document verification system (DVS). Under the plan, government organisations and certain businesses would be able to verify identities by cross-checking drivers' licences, passports and birth certificates with official sources.
The system could have major adverse impacts on privacy, similar to those of the widely-detested 1987 proposal for an Australia Card. The Hawke government was forced to abandon the introduction of this single-number, multi-facet identification system because of public uproar over its threat to privacy.
For example, Australia card information could have adversely affected people seeking refuge from physically threatening environments. It could also have stored information about purchasing habits, leaving people open to marketing bombardment.
More importantly, it could have stored information about voting patterns and political affiliations, raising the possibility of political intimidation or persecution.
Federal Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock has declared that the new system poses no threat to privacy, and that it would be used to identify persons involved in welfare fraud, money laundering or terrorism.
The new system would not initially store multi-facet information under a single access number. However, the effects could be virtually identical.
For a start, the scheme would be run by a single, central data exchange hub, which would collect information from various sources. In time this would include highly sophisticated customs service fingerprint and facial recognition data.
The exchange hub would collate all this information, therefore functioning in the same way as a single number ID card system.
Moreover, as the Chairperson of the Australian Privacy Foundation, Ms Anna Johnston, has stated, computer system efficiency in collating information has increased enormously since 1987.
"You can't rely on the inefficiencies of collating data to protect people any more — you have to rely on privacy law." Ms Johnston warned that the public would reject relaxation of the privacy law in order to facilitate introduction of the DVS.
The system as proposed also has great potential for misdirection of information to private interests.
The government has already stated that DVS information would be provided to airlines and financial institutions. Significantly, the government has not yet indicated whether the central data exchange hub itself would be run by a government organisation or a private concern!
Some indication of the level of responsibility of private firms for ensuring data privacy was given last week, with the revelation that one computer firm was selling prescription data from doctors' computers without the knowledge of either doctors or patients.
The government's reference to combating terrorism is particularly worrying. Anti-terrorism legislation introduced in recent years violates civil rights in ways previously considered unthinkable.
In the case of Australian Mamdouh Habib — despite a total lack of evidence of any criminal activity — he was imprisoned for years with appalling violation of his civil rights. When finally home, he will be subjected to 24-hour security surveillance, all in the name of combating terrorism.
The government's actions demonstrate that it is prepared to use information available to it for its own political ends on the pretext of combating terrorism — and to hell with privacy or other civil rights of Australian citizens.