JaRistotle’s Jottings | That NIDdling ID system

There is a well-known saying that 'the devil is in the details', and so with the passage of the contentious National Identification and Registration Act, which makes provisions for a National Identification System (NIDS), the devil was inevitably unleashed, so much so that the Opposition People's National Party (PNP) found it fit to mount a legal challenge to various aspects of the act. Nothing wrong with such challenges given the mandatory prescriptions therein, as people have a right to contest issues they consider to be infringements of their rights.

NIDless to say, the plaintiffs came well prepared, whereas the Government's lead counsel, none other than the learned Attorney General Marlene Malahoo Forte, fell short of the mark, with the headlines describing her as being 'flat-footed in her attempts to rebut the Opposition's arguments'. Things progressively went downhill for her, culminating in Chief Justice Bryan Sykes describing her citing of various cases in defending the constitutionality of the compulsory NIDS Act as a 'grand waste of time'.

A couple of things jump out at me here. First of all, if the Government's defence was so poorly executed, it makes me wonder if their preparation of the act was any better in the first place. I doubt it, as my own review raised questions regarding the necessity and logic of some of the provisions.

Illogical provisions

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Where legal instruments are concerned, it is not unusual for the concept to be well-intended and technically sound. However, given the process of reviews, debates and amendments which invariably follow, the finished instrument oftentimes bears notable deviation from the original draft. There is no escaping such digression, it is par for the course in a democracy.

Having read the official [website] justification for NIDS I was, and still am, sold on the primary concept, that is to 'provide a comprehensive and secure structure to enable the capture and storage of personal identity information for citizens and persons ordinarily resident in Jamaica'. Other envisioned benefits relate to ensuring compliance with national policies and procedures and enhanced public safety and security.

The concept calls for the utilisation of biographic and biometric information, the use of which is intended to readily identify an individual; basically to ensure one person, one identity. As regards the biometric information, I expected this to be confined to external non-invasive metrics such as fingerprints or retina scans. But the act speaks to blood type, which is irrelevant for identification purposes: blood type as provided by the individual for medical purposes is sufficient.

The act imposes an absolute requirement on all citizens and persons normally resident in Jamaica to register and have a NIDS card. In any system there are bound to be exceptions to general rules, albeit that those exceptions should be based on sound reason rather than being 'grandfather' clauses which facilitate manipulation, for 'beating the system'. Instances where exceptions would be relevant need to be specified. Thereafter, it is reasonable to expect that all able-bodied individuals to who the act applies will become compliant.

According to the act, in the event an individual has failed to register or be in possession of a NIDS card they will be denied access to goods and services provided by government entities. On the other hand, there is no such caveat concerning access to goods and services from private sector entities. Rubbish. Denial of access to life-saving services and goods is simply unthinkable, but they should be prosecuted for the breach nevertheless.

Back to the drawing board on this one. We need a simple but relevant means of ensuring one person, one identity: photographic, biographic and non-invasive biometric informa-tion, nothing more.