Identity and the Moral Code
Whilst flicking through the Sunday Times, I stumbled across an improbable insight into the identity debate, written by Jeremy Clarkson (an outspoken UK motoring journalist).
In his article Clarkson discusses the problem of stolen/cloned vehicle license plates - apparently 33,000 car owners had their plates cloned last year, allowing the thieves to escape road tolls, avoid paying for fuel (known in the trade as 'splash and dash' - which is essentially the same problem as the 'flash and dash' fraud we'll suffer if the government is daft enough to put a photo on the front of ID Cards), or to sell the vehicle under false pretences.
Because of this problem it's already difficult to purchase replacement plates in the UK - you have to provide proof of ID and the original vehicle license documents to prove ownership. Apparently the government is proposing a switch to a new 'tamper-proof' style of license plate that takes longer to remove and is certain to be destroyed in the removal process.
What interests me are Clarkson's comments on the vulnerability of the whole (vehicle) identity system:
"Are you seeing the problem yet? It's simple. If we all swapped plates the system would collapse, and it's genuinely hard to see how the state could put it back together again.
"Plainly [a driver Clarkson saw recently] arrived in Britain, looked at the way everything works and decided that by dispensing with the moral code he will never appear on the radar. So why should we? The rules of formal identity are only in place to persecute members of the law-abiding middle classes and, honestly, all you need to do to escape is change the six on your numberplate to a nine. And say, should by some miracle you ever be pulled over, that you've just been on a stag night, and that your mates mucked about with your car as a joke.
"That's why the government is so damned worried. You are not a free man because you are a number. But if you change that number you have anarchy in the UK."
And this is where, in my opinion, Clarkson has got to the heart of the problem. For the majority of middle-class, law-abiding citizens, identity simply isn't a problem. We don't claim benefits. We pay our taxes on time (no government cares who you are so long as you pay up). We abide by a moral and legal code. So when a new form of ID is thrust upon us, we find it very hard to understand why we need it, particularly when it will be so very simple indeed to circumvent, abuse or defraud it. But standing up in public and saying that you don't believe in the National ID Cards scheme will inevitably result in the same sort of abuse one might receive for requesting a well-cooked steak, or admitting that the football (that's soccer for our US readers) world cup is really rather tedious.
What this has got me thinking is: is there really a moral code for identity? Kim's Laws provide a fantastic framework, but what about the way that we use our identities in the day-to-day physical world? Sure, I have a number of online pseudonyms, but rarely do I adopt a pseudonym when dealing with anyone face-to-face. I do, however, often choose to pay cash, and steadfastly refuse to hand over my details to the supermarkets, loyalty card providers and chain stores, but that's because I don't want my junk mail volumes to reach the same levels as my spam.
Any suggestions would be appreciated...
10:42:03 AM 
|
