Politicians are adept at destroying an opposing argument, usually by not engaging with it. However, there are fundamental differences between a biometric passport and the proposed ID card (Does David Davis know what an ID card does? newsdesk.computing.co.uk).

The required biometric on the passport is a digitised copy of the photograph. Fingerprints, or some derivative of them, may be added, but are not a legal requirement. A passport is not strictly an identity document, although it is often used as such. Either way, its use is primarily for crossing national borders and establishing one's credentials in a foreign country.

The ID card is primarily a document for internal control and has a far wider and more worrying range of possible uses. The card itself, as proposed, will carry very limited data, but will link  to the National Identity Register, which in turn is  intended to link to personal data held across a range of databases.

The scope of this goes far beyond anything historically achieved by or intended for passports. David Davis can rightly be accused of oversimplifying the argument and the technicalities - something politicians are prone to do as they tend to assume the population is basically thick and/or of
very limited attention span. However, I think you are too harsh in writing off his position as a result.

The appropriation by a government of the control and ownership of the personal identity of citizens is a fundamentally dangerous, inhumane, anti-democratic act. There is no historical precedent that says the state can be trusted with such a degree of control over the private lives of the people.

If wickedness does not wreak havoc, incompetence surely will - and knowing what we know about human nature and large institutions, we will probably be faced with both.

Adair, submitted on the web