Speaking at the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), Gordon Brown claimed that the national identity scheme is not about increasing the power of the state, but is a recognition of an individual's "right to have your identity protected and secure". This passive formulation carries an implicit assumption that it is for the state to protect identities, not individuals.

The ID scheme demands personal details be provided to the state; imposition on every citizen of onerous reporting requirements, enforced by hefty fines for non-compliance; routine recording of transactions that we make with private and public-sector organisations; and the collection and collation of this personal information on vast databases. This does not amount to an enhancement of personal security and the measures certainly do not constitute an extension of individuals' rights. Indeed, the Prime Minister presents a sophistic reversal of the right to privacy, enshrined in both the European Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The fundamental right at the heart of the matter is the freedom for us to protect our own personal information, divulging or withholding it as we see fit; the freedom for us to protect our own electronic identities, as well as more intimate personal details. In essence, the freedom to control who knows what about us.

Attempting to justify this unwarranted intrusion by the state, the Prime Minister claimed repeatedly that we are now living in a new world. He gave the example of modern laptop computers using fingerprint scanners to aid encryption. It is ironic that he should have chosen to focus on a technology that will be undermined so entirely by the ID scheme. With the existence of a government database of everyone's fingerprints, what rational business would entrust the protection of confidential documents to non-secret keys? Only a fool would now trust the government to keep secret information secure.

The Prime Minister now speaks of liberty as "freedom from fear". Unfortunately, the government seems incapable of understanding that it cannot solve every problem for us; that there are sound reasons to fear the effects of state surveillance; and that sometimes it should just leave well alone.

Geraint Bevan, NO2ID Scotland, Glasgow