I've been waiting, with bated breath, for that delightful example of bureaucratic competence, the losing of 25 million records, to be used as an example of how ID cards were even more important. Not just important, necessary even, for, in some magical manner, the fact that the information on them will be much more important, means that the possibility of normal levels of bureaucratic competence is simply impossible.
Lo and behold, we actually have this argument being made by David Blunkett in a letter  to The Times. On first reading my favourite part was this:
The first, as I have discovered in the three years since I was Home Secretary — including as the honorary chair of the Information Systems Security Association Advisory Group — is the astonishing lack of understanding about the necessity of security in the transfer of data.
Perhaps I'm being picky but shouldn't we be choosing our Home Secretaries from the pool of people who already understand these basic facts before their appointment, rather than those who find them out after their resignation?
As the day went on I found Dizzy's refutation  of his points on security. ID cards will be plagued with exactly the same problems for the system will still contain that most fallible of instruments, human beings. Mr. Blunkett's testament here is, in Dizzy's view, testes.
I then found Mr. Eugenides who has something else very interesting to point out . Mr. Blunkett is a paid advisor to a company which operates ID card systems and that company has registered an interest in contracting for parts of the UK one.
So the thought of said Mr. Blunkett telling us all that the ID card system will be quite different, indeed, super-secure, so much so in fact that the recent gobsmackingly awful security shambles shows just how vital it is that we get cracking on the new system toot sweet, doesn't surprise me.
As the risk of getting all Mandy Rice-Davies on you, well, he would, wouldn't he?