UK is the new OneState

The UK Police announced recently that they will be using the UK's almost blanket CCTV coverage to monitor all vehicles

The primary aims claimed for the system are tackling untaxed and uninsured vehicles, stolen cars and the considerably broader one of 'denying criminals the use of the roads'... Having one every quarter of a mile on motorways quite clearly means they'll be used to enforce speed limits as well,...otherwise, checking a vehicle's tax and insurance status every 15 seconds or thereabouts would seem overkill.

The Government is pulling the terrorism card far too freely:

• Iraq: the supposed 45 minutes (pdf) it would take Iraq to launch an attack has never been substantiated


• ID cards: will have what relevance exactly, when the terrorists are British?


• New Anti-terrorism legislation: seems ill-justified. Is it supposed to inspire confidence that they need 90 days to work out who they've arrested?
  

So I wrote to Nick Raynsford, my MP, to protest against compulsory ID cards (also, sticker):

Dear Nick,
I would like to protest very strongly against the introduction of ID cards in the UK. I have read thoroughly on the subject and so far cannot see any sense in their introduction.
I would like to attend one of your surgeries but I am living in Berlin until next August. Maybe I will be able to come around Christmas.
Your voting record on the issue is strongly in favour. I know you will be extremely well read on the subject, but I hope in this letter I might give you a fresh perspective.
My main objection to the scheme is that the return on investment of the scheme is poor. The Government estimates the cost of introduction to be six billion pounds, or £100 per person. The LSE estimated the cost may be as high as eighteen billion, or £300 per person. Six billion alone would pay for thirty new hospitals (or many other possibilities). Hospitals are a direct and tangible outcome from spending, as opposed to the uncertain benefits of ID cards.
The Bill lists the aims of the scheme as national security, prevention or detection of crime, enforcement of immigration controls, enforcement of prohibitions on unauthorised working or employment and securing the efficient and effective provision of public services.
I cannot see that the bill will effect these aims in any significant way. Focusing on immigration control as an example, how are ID cards any more effective than passports? Asylum seekers will not be affected, they are not UK citizens and as such are not entitled to a passport or ID card. Terrorism also lost credibility as an objective after all the London bombers were found to be British, and therefore would be entitled to an ID card.
I also object to the compulsory nature of the scheme on privacy grounds. ID cards are one of many modern examples of the use of technology to monitor individuals. There is a balance here of the right of the individual to privacy and the right of the society to know. I believe that unless a strong case can be made otherwise, the right of the individual should default over the right of the society or Government, because individuals are more fundamental. Societies come and go, individuals remain.
Modern computer systems would allow monitoring of all email. Mobile telephones allow the locations of individuals to be crudely monitored. Just because a technology is available for monitoring individuals, it does not mean it should be implemented, unless a clear benefit to the individual is apparent.
I am extremely interested in your response.