Hotline Abuse Identification

Meldpunt Misbruik Identificatieplicht = Hotline Abuse Identification.

Welcome to the Dutch campaign against compulsory identification.

On 1 January 2005 a new law on compulsory identification, known as the 'Wet op de uitgebreide identificatieplicht' came into force in the Netherlands. This law gives a wide range of government and law enforcement officials the power to demand identification in the course of their duties. The only restriction is that the demand is "within reason". In praxis it is unclear what this means. A penalty of 50 euro, 25, for people between 14 and 16 years will apply to anyone who does not comply. Under special circumstances this penalty could rise to a maximum of 2250,- or imprisonment.

We, the Meldpunt Misbruik Identificatieplicht started with a group of volunteers to gather information about the consequences in daily life of compulsory identification. We believe that the new law with its unclear restrictions will have no effect on the reduction of crime or fraud, but introduce additional problems such as discrimination, and the abuse of power. We believe that it also leads to function creep. The new law is strongly connected with other political measures such as the introduction of the (new) Citizen Service Number and the biometric passport and registration in municipal databases. It is also the intention of the Dutch government to build a central database with the biometric details of every identity card and passport holder. These new measures could be compared with the identity card bill in the United Kingdom, with it's National Identity Register Number and compulsory registering of biometric details of every citizen on a national database.

The 'Wet op de uitgebreide identificatieplicht' was strongly criticised by the Dutch Legal Bar Association, the Dutch Order of Lawyers, the Data Protection Authorities and the Youth Council. In the opinion of the Data Protection Authorities there was no social pressing need as required in article 8 of the European Treaty of Human Rights. Also the London-based human rights watchdog Privacy International has warned that Justice Minister Donner's 'Wet op de uitgebreide identificatieplicht' would violate the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child (article 16). Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) guarantees every individual the right to respect for his or her private life, subject only to narrow exceptions where government action is imperative.

Compulsory identification was introduced as an anti-crime measure but the Dutch Public Ministry is already admitting that the new law has no noticeable influence on crime rates. Jurisprudence over the last year shows that a few thousand of the fines were in fact illegal because there was no valid reason for demanding identification. In praxis minor offences such as cycling without lights are now being double fined (one fine for the offence itself and one for not showing a valid ID). Since the law came into force the rate of missing and stolen ID documents has increased until 87.000 in may 2006.

In our opinion the abolition of the law on compulsory identification would be the best the government could do, to reinvest in the confidence of its citizens but political decision making in Europe is moving towards the opposite direction. We mention for example the introduction of the biometric passport with fingerprints, the new coming European Health Card, the new electronic ID card in Belgium, the biometric ID card proposal of the French interior minister and the new planned ’Ausweis’ ID card with biometric details in Germany.

The EU surveillance state that spreads out over Europe is no answer on threats like terrorism and criminality. Therefore a strong European campaign to defend our basic human rights is needed.