Musings: The ID Card

For long-time Hongkongers* above the age of 11, having an I.D. card is a part of life. One can obtain it through being born in this city, by parentage, or by residing here for 7 years. The full details of this is listed on the government webpage, though even with all their fancy wording, the defining parameters for who exactly constitutes a permanent Hong Kong resident is still a mess. There is a lot of controversy regarding these criteria, and rather than delve into those matters (one can hear about it in the news, which consists of emotive and sensationalized statements from both sides of the argument. And given what C.Y. Leung, the Chief Exec-elect is saying in his press statements, the first criteria looks as though it will be challenged.) I'm more interested in considering the nature of an I.D. card itself.

For starters, the card is a means to identify ourselves, to delineate our individual statuses in this populous society. Many parts of our social lives depend on it; from the overt purposes of voting, seeking employment, attaining medical care, or having a bank account; to the more discreet need for an I.D. number to apply for memberships in clubs, getting a phone subscription, and whatnot. My I.D. number was needed for bike rentals (see post about cycling to Tai Mei Tuk.) With the card having such a wide range of applications in our daily lives, it is possible that a phenomenon called 'function creep' has come into play. The most basic meaning of 'function creep' is where some form of item gradually infiltrates our daily lives to fulfil different domains of needs. We become over-reliant on this item, treating it akin to a limb. 

While these cards fulfil our personal daily needs, it also serves the needs of the governing body. It might seem as though having this I.D. card benefits the holder by allowing them to glide through Hong Kong immigration controls with ease (and who hasn't done this while smugly looking at the immigration queues for visitors), but it also helps the government departments keep track of who is going where and when. The holder can apply for welfare with the card, but it also lets the governing body know what you are up to, and what your finances are like.  I.D. cards facilitate the surveillance needs of a governing body. Surveillance often has negative connotations within the media and common imagination, but can have positive applications especially in the context of crime. The reason why the positive is often overshadowed by the negative is because surveillance technology is easily abused, or has the potential to be abused, by the people who employ it. Surveillance is a huge topic of discussion and broaches on many social issues, especially in helping the formation of a 'police state', invasion of personal privacy, and the erosion of civil liberties, just to name a few...


(And just wondering; do we ever question why police seemingly pulls people aside on the streets for an I.D. check? What sort of criteria do they use to select these people?)

These identity documents can also be socially segregating, denoting different degrees of rights received by segments of the population. Having a card confers certain rights to the holder, allowing access to medical, education, welfare, and other government-provided benefits. But at the same time, it also denies certain rights to those residing and working in the city without a permanent I.D. card. I'm specifically referring to the different identity documents held by Filipino domestic helpers, emphasizing their temporary statuses in Hong Kong, that can lead to differential (dare I say, discriminatory?) treatment towards them by the government and by the wider population. (On another tangent, do check out the 2011 Filipino residency bid in Hong Kong. It touches upon just whom the Hong Kong government wants to give a permanent I.D. card to, alluding to notions of 'desirable' and 'undesirable' citizens. Google 'Vallejos v. Commissioner of Registration'.) 

But if we are going to criticize the I.D. card, why shouldn't we extend the same points towards the Octopus card? The only difference between the I.D. card and the Octopus is that one is explicitly stated as being mandatory by the government, the other advertised by a corporation as a convenience for our daily lives. (And like the I.D. card conferring rights to its holder and denying it to those without, those with Octopus cards also pay a little less for their train fares in comparison to those who buy tickets for each individual trip.) We don't perceive the same qualms with Octopus cards which exhibit the same 'function creep' traits as the I.D. card. The Octopus was first introduced for use on all modes of transportation, and is now a mode of payment for supermarkets, fast-food restaurants, convenience stores, and other retail services. The amount of personal information submitted to obtain an Octopus card transformed it into something of a secondary I.D. document (check out the 2010 Ming Pao article for more details.) The personalized Octopus knows your I.D. card number, your bank account details (for automatic refill when credit is low on the card), and all of your contact details. 


With all that personal data floating around the information banks of a single corporation, just how can we guarantee that it is treated in a suitable manner? The 2010 article from Techwire mentions how personal information of some Octopus users were sold to other business groups, for the sake of profit. It is worrying that despite an apology being issued by the Octopus group, and that this transaction of personal data did not result with any major consequence asides from an irritating ad here and there, this giant ethical question mark remains unresolved. But what is even more worrying is that the Hong Kong population did not display any large outcry from this abuse of trust, and simply got on with everyday life. 


And, if the Octopus card can abuse personal information for its own benefit, how could we be sure that personal information from our I.D. cards won't be/hasn't been used for the interest of a select few? 

There is a bundle of unanswered questions in my head. Why is an I.D. card mandatory for Hong Kong, when there are other countries that do not use it, or just makes obtaining it an optional endeavor? (For example, I chose to get an I.D. card from the California DMV because I needed to prove I was over 21 to enter Dave and Buster's for a social night. Noble, so noble.) Other countries such as the UK and Australia don't require I.D. cards at all, have clear reluctance towards implementing an obvious national identification system, and yet manage to harbour functioning societies that do not delve into chaos and anarchy. Why do we need to carry these I.D. cards with us all the time, and why must we present them to government bodies on the streets if requested? 

I think this entire rant was derived from my finding I.D. cards to be rather strange. My concerns are not only based on privacy issues (well, seeing how I have facebook, twitter, and a blog. And growing up in a city filled with CCTVs tends to desensitize one from such matters), but more to do with people in this city becoming accustomed towards having our entire lives being compressed into a series of numbers and data fragments on a microchip. It is indeed a unique sensation to have one's entire being and self being summed up by a material item a fraction of our physical weight. I'm neither against or for having an I.D. card, seeing how I grew up within this reality of enumerating my personal bio (heck, even the Chinese characters of my name are coded, which is awfully Borg-like), but it is important to ask questions... 


[This post will continuously be updated.]

*one of my postgraduate friends in the UK, upon hearing that I was from Hong Kong, jokingly referred to me as a 'Honkie'. Politely put, this is NOT the preferred term to use. Because it is unknown if my friend used the word with its associated negative connotations (it is often the case that people who make such gaffs are those who do not thoroughly examine the meaning of words), it wasn't worth getting offended or angry. 


It should also be said that whom term 'Hong Konger' encompasses is not very well defined. I've been asking around, but no one can give me a direct answer. Based on what I've seen and heard, there seems to be a  combination of linguistic, residency, ethnic, education, I.D. card, and birth-place component at play...

-----------------------------------

For more information on this topic:

-Greenleaf, G. (2012). 'Hong Kong's 'Smart' Id Card: Designed to be Out of Control'. in Bennet, C. and D. Lyon (eds.) 'Playing the Identity Card', Routledge (Online version as PDF file.) (This author also has other articles pertaining to the Australian response towards a national identification system, a good read.) 

-Lyon, David. (2008). 'Surveillance Society'. Talk for the Festival del Diritto, Piacenza, Italia. (Online version as PDF file.)