Source: Politika
The Ministry of the Interior announced that the application of the new ID Act will not start in late January, as prescribed by the law, and that under the new Government regulation citizens' obligation to have IDs with electronic chips will be optional, i.e. only those who want it will have it. The idea that the Government should intervene with a regulation and interfere with the content of the law may instigate serious criticisms from the aspect of formal and legal opportunities for its realization. I personally think that from the aspect of normal hierarchy of legal documents such an idea cannot take criticism, but I honestly do not wish to join those who want to do that. I think that the announced move of the Ministry of the Interior, at least for a while, is going to remove the burden of some dilemmas and calm many people down.One of my arguments comes from what I have learned during the talks I have held on several occasions in the past two months with members of various expert associations, representatives of NGOs and the Church about a rather curious subject. We talked about conscientious objection. Someone might consider it odd that I would think of conscientious objection as a “curious” subject, as it hardly deserves such an epithet.
Conscientious objection is internationally adopted legal standard meaning that a person can refuse to meet a legal obligation because of their religious, ethical, moral, philosophical or other beliefs. This right is adopted in a number of countries all over the world and has long ceased to be unusual. Even our Constitution recognised conscientious objection. Article 45 reads that “a person is not obligated to do military or any other legally prescribed service (that presupposes the use of arms) against their will or beliefs. The person who quotes conscientious objection may be summoned to meet the obligation (without the obligation to carry arms) in accordance with the law”.
„Omission”, i.e. enclosing the words referring to arms in brackets, illustrates the “curious” content of the talks mentioned above. In fact, people I talked to were thinking about the right of conscientious objection in a completely different context from the usual one - they were thinking about quoting this right with regard to the obligation that does not include the use of arms and had some serious arguments for this. The direct reason for this was the start of application of the new ID Act, primarily the provisions of Articles 7 and 8 that, among other things, prescribe that IDs should contain the so-called biometric data, that IDs should contain contact micro-controllers (chips), and that IDs should enable automatic reading of the data. Even when this law was being proposed, it provoked different reactions from different entities.
Some people see biometric IDs as an unnecessary, insufficient phenomenon which, although not really threatening, is irritating because of its “totalitarian” characteristics. Others see it as a step towards the establishment of real totalitarian control. And then, some see it as the first of the alleged three-stage process: first one of your documents has a chip, than you have a single document with a chip, and finally you just get the chip which is not carried in your pocket or a wallet as any other document, but on your body, implanted under your skin . And it is a short ride from there to the scary, apocalyptic perception of the future similar to the one from the recently often quoted Revelation of John. Serbian Constitution obliviously does not leave any room for quoting conscientious objection in relation to a legally prescribed obligation, except when such an obligation presupposes the use of arms. At the time when the law was going through the process of being passed, the fact that all criticisms were practically ignored says that political constellation was for it either. However, in spite of all this, it seems possible that - even without the amendments to the law - those who do not want an ID with a chip will not be obligated to have it. Is this the first sign that more room for conscientious objection is being left? We cannot be sure about this, of course. But what is certain is that, at least for the analysts, the question of who or what made the Ministry of Interior withdraw this move will be very interesting. One of the likely premises in relation to this could be indicated by a very conspicuous engagement of the representatives of SPC. Realistic or not, such a premise, when it comes to conscientious objection, is certainly evoking. It reminds me - although I prefer arguments of legal nature - that the process whose result is the current, adopted content of conscientious objection, was initially instigated by religious motives.
Many of those who do not see a problem with biometric IDs in the context of realisation of some black or grey, Orwellian or Biblical, futuristic projection, see it as a realistic modern problem. Personal documents equipped with electronic chips mean creation of data bases that are far richer and more complex than the current, traditional ones. This increases opportunities for the authorities to almost instantaneously use a huge amount of information, which can be abused either by the authorities or the entity that has received the information. Of course, it does not have to be the authorities that will necessarily abuse the information, use it illegally or meddle with its content, but this can happen as a result of malicious intrusions from the outside. To this we have to add suspicions and warnings about the likely (mis) use of IDs with electronic chips for surveillance and location of their owners. It would be unreasonable, in any given field, to give up the benefits of progressive technologies, but it would also be irresponsible to forget the risks they bring. This is exactly why it is important that the time that will be bought with this “controversial” move of the Ministry of the Interior, is used for open communication between the government and expert public in order to remove as many dilemmas as possible, as well as to eliminate the opportunities for misuse of the new identification system or at least to minimise them. With this regard we should not forget the fact that, although it is guaranteed by the law, the right to personal data protection is more theoretical than practical in Serbia. Introduction of new IDs, with the chip or without it, is a reminder that one of the key priorities of the new convocation of the Parliament should be to pass the new Personal Data Protection Act. *Information Commissioner
