ID card rollout begins
Peter Tomlinson
ukcrypto at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:32:04 +0100
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040909010108090205040206
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Ian Batten wrote:
> On 25 Sep 08, at 1003, Peter Tomlinson wrote:
>> Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
>>> 2008/9/25 Peter Tomlinson :
>>> Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 2008/9/25 Roland Perry:
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7634111.stm
>>>>> "Ministers say the cards will combat illegal immigration and working
>>>>> because officials, employers and educational establishments will be
>>>>> able to check a migrant's entitlements more easily"
>>>>>
>>>>> I presume they're allowing pretty much anyone to hook up to the
>>>>> database and are going to provide card readers to employers then?
>>>> No, you have to call the Call Centre.
>>>>
>>> So none of the biometrics, or any data stored on the chip for that
>>> matter, are verified then? How would you know that the card is
>>> authentic and not cloned from someone else who has legal entitlements?
>> My response was to the last question. Officials will have some kind
>> of as yet unspecified "readers", but maybe not portable ones.
> Immigration and Asylum Act, 1996, section 8 uses the words ``appeared
> to him to relate to the employee''. Several summaries on government
> websites, such as this
> <http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=5222289> use wording
> like ``Employers should ensure that the document presented appears to
> be the original, appears to relate to the applicant and appears to be
> on the list of permitted evidence'', which is subtly different: the
> act is asking if the document appeared genuine to the prospective
> employer, the summary is asking if the document appeared genuine in
> some more abstract sense (perhaps the mythical ``reasonable man'').
>
> In terms of the act, ``appeared to him'' implies in the context of his
> knowledge and experience. A faked document would have to be
> screamingly obvious for there to be even the beginning of a case
> against the employer for accepting fake documents. It would be
> completely unreasonable to expect an employer to made judgements on
> the legitimacy of EU passports, never mind less family documents.
>
> ian
>
> (2)Subject to subsection (3) below, in proceedings under this section,
> it shall be a defence to prove that—
> (a)before the employment began, there was produced to the employer a
> document which appeared to him to relate to the employee and to be of
> a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State; and
> (b)either the document was retained by the employer, or a copy or
> other record of it was made by the employer in a manner specified in
> the order in relation to documents of that description.
> (3)The defence afforded by subsection (2) above shall not be available
> in any case where the employer knew that his employment of the
> employee would constitute an offence under this section.
>
One TV report a few months ago after a raid on an ethnic restaurant:
employer said that a new employee's NI card was pronounced good by the
Call Centre, and he had a good P45 from his previous employer, but the
eBorder raiders said he was illegal and took him away. This kind of
Kafkaesque scenario is going to be repeated over and over again.
Peter
--------------040909010108090205040206
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Ian Batten wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:454B3CFF-7CCD-4D05-8FC9-BC70B82164F7@batten.eu.org"
type="cite">On 25 Sep 08, at 1003, Peter Tomlinson wrote:<br
class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:a2b6592c0809250136o432eb5f1g1ce9f7cc7b222958@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">2008/9/25 Peter Tomlinson :
Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">2008/9/25 Roland Perry:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7634111.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7634111.stm</a>
"Ministers say the cards will combat illegal immigration and working
because officials, employers and educational establishments will be
able to check a migrant's entitlements more easily"
I presume they're allowing pretty much anyone to hook up to the
database and are going to provide card readers to employers then?</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">No, you have to call the Call Centre.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->So none of the biometrics, or any data stored on the chip for that
matter, are verified then? How would you know that the card is
authentic and not cloned from someone else who has legal entitlements?</pre>
</blockquote>
My response was to the last question. Officials will have some kind of
as yet unspecified "readers", but maybe not portable ones.</div>
</blockquote>
Immigration and Asylum Act, 1996, section 8 uses the words ``appeared
to him to relate to the employee''. Several summaries on government
websites, such as <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=5222289">this</a> use
wording like ``Employers should ensure that the document presented
appears to be the original, appears to relate to the applicant and
appears to be on the list of permitted evidence'', which is subtly
different: the act is asking if the document appeared genuine to the
prospective employer, the summary is asking if the document appeared
genuine in some more abstract sense (perhaps the mythical ``reasonable
man''). </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In terms of the act, ``appeared to him'' implies in the context
of his knowledge and experience. A faked document would have to be
screamingly obvious for there to be even the beginning of a case
against the employer for accepting fake documents. It would be
completely unreasonable to expect an employer to made judgements on the
legitimacy of EU passports, never mind less family documents.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>ian</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;">
<div
style="margin: 0em 0px 0.5em; padding: 0em; font-variant: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-family: arial,helvetica,verdana,sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0em; font-size: 0.8em; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; color: black; background-color: white; line-height: normal; clear: both;"><span
class="LegDS LegLHS LegP2No"
style="font-family: arial,helvetica,verdana,sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0em; display: block; float: left; text-align: right; width: 8%;">(2)</span><span
class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text"
style="font-family: arial,helvetica,verdana,sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0em; display: block; float: right; text-align: justify; width: 90%;">Subject
to subsection (3) below, in proceedings under this section, it shall be
a defence to prove that—</span></div>
<div
style="margin: 0em 0px 0.5em; padding: 0em; font-variant: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-family: arial,helvetica,verdana,sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0em; font-size: 0.8em; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; color: black; background-color: white; line-height: normal; clear: both; width: 100%;"><span
class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No"
style="font-family: arial,helvetica,verdana,sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0em; display: block; float: left; text-align: right; width: 15%;">(a)</span><span
class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"
style="font-family: arial,helvetica,verdana,sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0em; display: block; float: right; text-align: justify; width: 83%;">before
the employment began, there was produced to the employer a document
which appeared to him to relate to the employee and to be of a
description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State; and</span></div>
<div
style="margin: 0em 0px 0.5em; padding: 0em; font-variant: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-family: arial,helvetica,verdana,sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0em; font-size: 0.8em; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; color: black; background-color: white; line-height: normal; clear: both; width: 100%;"><span
class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No"
style="font-family: arial,helvetica,verdana,sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0em; display: block; float: left; text-align: right; width: 15%;">(b)</span><span
class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"
style="font-family: arial,helvetica,verdana,sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0em; display: block; float: right; text-align: justify; width: 83%;">either
the document was retained by the employer, or a copy or other record of
it was made by the employer in a manner specified in the order in
relation to documents of that description.</span></div>
<div
style="margin: 0em 0px 0.5em; padding: 0em; font-variant: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-family: arial,helvetica,verdana,sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0em; font-size: 0.8em; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; color: black; background-color: white; line-height: normal; clear: both;"><span
class="LegDS LegLHS LegP2No"
style="font-family: arial,helvetica,verdana,sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0em; display: block; float: left; text-align: right; width: 8%;">(3)</span><span
class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text"
style="font-family: arial,helvetica,verdana,sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0em; display: block; float: right; text-align: justify; width: 90%;">The
defence afforded by subsection (2) above shall not be available in any
case where the employer knew that his employment of the employee would
constitute an offence under this section.</span><span
class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text"
style="font-family: arial,helvetica,verdana,sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0em; display: block; float: right; text-align: justify; width: 90%;"><br>
</span><span class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text"
style="font-family: arial,helvetica,verdana,sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0em; display: block; float: right; text-align: justify; width: 90%;"><br>
</span></div>
</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
One TV report a few months ago after a raid on an ethnic restaurant:
employer said that a new employee's NI card was pronounced good by the
Call Centre, and he had a good P45 from his previous employer, but the
eBorder raiders said he was illegal and took him away. This kind of
Kafkaesque scenario is going to be repeated over and over again.<br>
<br>
Peter
</body>
</html>
--------------040909010108090205040206--