Dave Biggart isn't thinking big enough (Letters, September 7). Why stop at ID cards? The technology already exists to implant all citizens with an radio frequency identification (RFID) chip. This would allow the state to know who and where all of us are at any given time. The advantages are numerous and could include: anyone purchasing, for instance, alcohol, cigarettes or pies would be identified immediately and summoned for interview by the Commissar for the Reduction of Anti-social Practices (Crap) to explain and apologise for their deviant tendencies and be barred from receiving NHS treatment until a lengthy period of re-education had been completed. Friendly neighbourhood RFID operatives, working under the auspices of Crap, would scan us in the street to discover whether we have a legitimate reason for being there and, oh glory, all the occupants of a speeding car, easily identified by RFID mile-post scanners, could be fined for being present at the commission of a felony.

The benefits, however, would increase massively once the RFID register is tied to the national DNA databank. Insurance companies would be falling over themselves to buy our genetic profiles. Only the genetically impaired would have anything to fear, and think how much Mr Biggart's insurance premiums would reduce by creating a genetic underclass of uninsurables. The police would also save resources by targeting only those with a genetic predisposition to drug addiction, crime and so on. The War on Terror would also be greatly aided by identifying genetic links to known terrorists.

Remember, only the morally and genetically deficient have anything to fear.

I do have an alternative suggestion. There are many uninhabited islands off our coast, one of which could be gifted to Mr Biggart and those of his ilk and re-named the Isle of Self-Righteousness, where the worthy population of uber-citizens could pass their days gloriously; safely tracked, cctv'd and catalogued for the greater benefit of all in their very own Orwellian dystopia.

Alan Douglas, Sorbie, Wigtownshire.

Dave Biggart appears to have missed the whole point of the government's ID-card proposals. Nobody, and certainly not those opposed to cards, is suggesting that he should not be allowed to carry on his person medical information, driver's licence or anything else he pleases. What concerns me, and others, is the compulsory nature of the current ID-card proposals.

I already have a unique national insurance number, a unique driver's licence, unique bank cards, a unique passport and many other forms of identification. The difference, of course, is that I am not obliged to carry one with me so that on someone's whim I have to prove who I am. And all this before we even get into the waste of money, time and completely useless attempt that ID cards will be in tackling terrorism.

If Dave Biggart and anyone else, for that matter, want to carry an ID card then let them do so. For me, thanks but no thanks.

John Duncan, 6 Lomond View, Westfield.

If Dave Biggart wishes to carry a card containing emergency medical information, NO2ID would certainly not deny him that right. However, if he has a serious medical problem, I would recommend investing instead in a medic alert bracelet (eg, SOS Talisman). There is far less chance of a bracelet being lost, stolen or damaged in an accident.

Unfortunately, Mr Biggart will be disappointed to discover that the government's £20bn card will not function as a driving licence. He will have to carry two cards if he wishes to prove both his identity and his entitlement to drive.

He will also be disappointed to learn that the national DNA database is of no use for medical research. The 10 points of junk DNA that are recorded in a genetic profile carry no information of use to doctors or researchers.

Although the profiles contain no useful genetic information, they do show familial relationships. This will undoubtedly be welcomed by people who find that they are not as closely related to their loved ones as they thought previously.

Revelations will also be welcomed by the small proportion of the population that have chromosomal abnormalities (eg, XXY instead of XX or XY). They and their spouses will surely be delighted to learn about their hitherto unknown sexual ambiguity.

Compulsory DNA sampling for all may well be a boon for genealogists and psychological counsellors. In the future, it is also likely to be profitable for insurance companies who will be better able to avoid taking on bad risks - surely of great benefit to the global economy.

Mr Biggart is obviously ill-informed about the details of DNA profiling, so it is unsurprising that he jumps to erroneous conclusions about the impact of extending sampling to the innocent. In 2004, Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, the pioneer of the technique, warned that the increasing number of records on the database meant that matches were "no longer foolproof". As the database is polluted by irrelevant profiles, the chance of false matches increases, leading to a corresponding reduction in the usefulness of the tool to the police.

Geraint Bevan, NO2ID Scotland, 3e Grovepark Gardens, Glasgow.

Dave Biggart suggested that the majority of honest Scots would have no problem with the implementation of a national DNA database. I beg to differ, and he might, too, if he were to think about the implications. First, the very nature of databases implies that there will be errors. It might be in favour of a criminal. Alternatively, an innocent person's name could get associated with a criminal's DNA. Think it can't happen? The government has already admitted that more than 500,000 names on the DNA database are false, misspelled or incorrect. Who knows what errors there are in the DNA records themselves?

Secondly, even if the database were error free, with every individual enrolled, any criminal with half a brain cell would plant random DNA at the scene of crime. If he/she happens to use your DNA, you will then have to prove you weren't at the scene. Rather you than me.

Let's be sensible about this. Most of us are not criminals. Those who are will go on the database. To include everyone, irrespective of their criminality, will be hugely expensive and will lead to some innocents being in the frightening situation of having to prove (against planted DNA evidence or database mix-up) that they were not at the scene of the crime. This is not the society I wish to live in.

Bob Downie, 66 Mansewood Road, Glasgow.