To: letters@guardian.co.uk
Re: The need for a "voluntary" National ID database in our "Social Jungle"
Date: Tue 30 September 2003

Dear Sir/Madam,

Much social and political theory continues to ignore what has always been a basis of economic theory; namely, that society is a JUNGLE, in which most people's main concern is not for fairness or the common good, but for their own, primarily material and financial, advantage. We are higher primates (the planet's Greatest Ape) who no longer struggle for survival and advantage in the natural environment, but in the artificial, social environment of our own creation.

Why have so many immigrants come to Britain since the War, if not to take advantage of its social institutions and achievements? And who can blame them?

And for all the talk about serving one's country or society, most people, whether native or immigrant, are mainly concerned with getting out of it for themselves and their families as much as they can. And again, who can blame them? 

Is "success" not synonymous with wealth? Is a wealthy person not by definition someone who takes more than an average share of the goods and services society produces? 

In fact, the wealthier someone is (the bigger their share of GDP) the more successful they are considered to be. Bill Gates, for example, is seen as the world's most successful man, because he is the most wealthy. The Rolling Stones are Britain's most "successful" band because they make the most money for themselves.

Bill Gates and the Rolling Stones are doing nothing wrong or illegal - just taking advantage of the opportunities available to them in our "Social Jungle". One should not be deceived by their generosity. When you have so much wealth you can afford to be generous with it, and would be a fool not to be.

As for the rest of us, we seek our social and material advantage as best we can. For those at the lower end of the social scale, social benefits are there to be exploited just as those further up the scale exploit the "opportunities" available to them.

It is our "human" nature which strives to improve social justice and conditions for everyone. But at the same time, we continue holding on to social values, attitudes, aspirations and structures, and to operate an economic system based mainly on our "animal" nature and the desire for social and material (financial) advantage over others. This has resulted in the very unsatisfactory, unstable and non-sustainable situation we find ourselves in today, a situation in which our social welfare system is inspired by our "human" nature, but financed from milking an economic system based on our animal nature.

What we need is an economic system also based on our human nature.

The problem is, how do we get there, when there is just one market place (which is becoming globalised), where the law of the jungle (i.e. man's animal nature) rules?

The answer is to create an alternative "Moral Economy" (the beginnings of which already exist), where people (producers and consumers) are motivated more by their human than by their animal nature, putting social and environmental considerations before making or saving money.

That still leaves us with the problem of a single market place, where it is very difficult (often impossible) to know whether we are dealing with (and thus supporting) the Moral Economy or the amoral economy, particularly when one and the same person (or company) may be moral one day (or in one respect) and amoral (or even immoral) another.

The solution to this problem is transparency.

Those intent on acting amorally (or immorally), of course, will not like the idea and insist on their right (even their "human right") to confidentiality and privacy.

Those of us who are serious about creating a Moral Economy, however, will not just accept but embrace the idea for transparency. After all, it is not such a big deal when you have nothing amoral (or immoral) to conceal.

And this is where the need for national ID database comes in (Secret go-ahead for ID card database; 30 September 2003). At last!

In the market place, vendors will exaggerate, deny, bend and manipulate the truth, or simply lie to gain your confidence and get you to buy their amoral (or immoral) products and services. Tobacco companies, for example, encourage us to smoke, car manufacturers to buy their lethal, petrol-guzzling, environmentally harmful vehicles, and airlines to fly more. They are not concerned about the damage their products or services are doing to your health or the environment. Their first priority is doing business and making a profit.

That is what companies are in business for, of course: to make a profit. Why else? It is the very basis of our "amoral economy", which currently probably accounts for at least 99% of all economic activity. 

In contrast, a company in the Moral Economy is in business to provide a product or service for the good of society, present and future (i.e. it has to be good for the environment and sustainability too). For the provision of that product or service, such a company expects to receive a fair and proportionate reward, which it distributes fairly and proportionately amongst its cooperatively organised stakeholders.

We need to be able to distinguish between people and companies participating in the Moral Economy and contributing towards a humane, fair and sustainable society, and those who are not.

This necessitates transparency.

It is not enough, however, for someone (or a company) just to claim they are being honest and transparent, because, unfortunately, there are whose who will lie and deceive. If we are to trust one another - and trust me must - we have to open ourselves to independent scrutiny and checks, fundamental to which is our identity (there is no point scrutinising or checking someone whose identity you are not sure of).

Thus the need for a national ID database. When we tell someone who we are, they need to be able to check it out. Cheats and deceivers will be exposed - and avoided, until they change their ways.

Such a database will have to contain more information than the government currently has in mind, thus there is no prospect of it being made compulsory. Also, there is no need. On the contrary, it needs to be voluntary.

What we need is a "Voluntary ID database". All the information contained in a personal file would be provided voluntarily, along with permission to check it out. Everyone would be free to provide as much or as little information as they wish, and responsible for their own file (via a secure internet link, or at their local authority), which would remove the fear of unknown or unalterable errors, expressed by Barry Hugill of Liberty.

To be certain that someone is who they say they are, and not using a false identity and forged documents, necessitates the use of biometrics, i.e. DNA profile, iris and/or finger scan, which will also be extremely useful in detecting and preventing crime.

The individual would also have to be given the right to decide who has access to what information. I wouldn't want everyone to have access to my address, telephone number or DNA profile, for example.

Such a project needs to be financed and organised by the government, but that will mean waiting - perhaps for ever. In the meantime there is nothing to stop those of us enthusiastic about the idea from making a start of our own, for example, by posting our ID file on the Internet, ready for collection when the government or a well-financed private initiative is ready to include them in its database. To give you an idea of what I have in mind, here is a link to my own "draft" ID file: draft VID file of Roger Hicks.