Sir, I read Ian Angell’s article on the horrors that lurk behind the ID card project (Comment, March 7) with a dawning realisation that I have already experienced some of the effects of computerised identity. My parents gave me three Christian names and, from the start, addressed me by the second. Computers do not like this.

As for my third Christian name, I have had to renounce that altogether. Computerised forms do not allow such an antisocial departure from their Procrustean norm. There is no fighting this; I have just had to accept it. I answer to “Raymond” meekly and put six decades of Nigeldom behind me.

There is, however, a silver lining. I shall shortly be retiring to France where the name Nigel is both unknown and unpronounceable. I have now had useful experience of identity shift and, since buying a house in Normandy, have renounced my habitual Christian name for all but family and close friends. I am confident that this will go a small way towards satisfying the, often overweening, demands of French bureaucracy.

Raymond Nigel (Wilson) Elbourne
Congleton, Cheshire

Sir, While Ian Angell is correct to point out the risks of identity theft we should also be aware that the recent Prüm treaty sets a precedent for sharing national data with the 26 other countries of the EU.

So not only would we have to guard against “sleepers” waiting to hack into data in government departments, but also against hackers and criminals in 26 other member states.

Syed Kamall, MEP
Kingston upon Thames, Surrey

Sir, I read Professor Ian Angell’s recent article on identity cards with amazement; were we supposed to treat this as a serious academic assessment or an exercise in hyperbole designed to provoke the students? We do need a balanced assessment of the ID project, but Angell accuses the Home Secretary of subscribing to the “pixie dust” school of technology, ie, an inordinate belief in the capability of IT to solve all problems. With his paranoid descriptions of all IT systems I presume he starts the day sharpening his quill pen, given the inherent danger of using a PC or e- mails. Every IT system he examines is a failure validated by anecdotal evidence or worst-case scenarios.

If Professor Angell is right about the inherent dangers of computer systems, why are not airplanes constantly crashing, as they rely on computers for traffic control? There are many other examples of effective computer systems and we cannot ignore the need to safeguard the identity of our citizens. We need a rational debate on ID cards. Therefore it is a shame that Professor Angell’s contribution seems designed to raise fear rather than a considered analysis.

Lord Young of Norwood Green
House of Lords

Sir, As a business academic, I am a fairly frequent visitor to the US and hold a valid visa; my biometric details held include my fingerprints. Unfortunately, I am also a psoriasis sufferer, which sometimes renders my prints unreadable.

On the last two occasions, US immigration equipment could only match one of my prints, which resulted in my being taken to a side room for further detailed scrutiny, ensuring significant delay. No one could offer an explanation as to why, if one print matched, the other might not.

Professor Stewart Hamilton
Lausanne, Switzerland