Your editorial (January 1) says that the government has "lost the argument" on ID cards. In fact, other than scaremongering about a police state, we've had little debate about them. Last week you carried a picture of a Thai hill tribeswoman, fresh from voting and holding her ID card. Many western European democracies have them. When introduced in the Netherlands, they were generally accepted as necessary; the only real debate was about whether carrying them should be compulsory.

ID cards won't solve everything, but they would help in several crucial areas, including fraud prevention, illegal working and counter-terrorism. Yes, they may be a minor intrusion on our individual liberties, but so are a thousand other things, such as the obligation to wear a seat belt. Geraint Bevan (Letters, December 26) argues that "the notion that we must give up our privacy or liberty to protect our way of life is absurd". It isn't. We accept minor infringements of our privacy or liberty in all sorts of areas to help prevent loss to ourselves and our fellow citizens.

The infringement Mr Bevan was railing against was stop-and-search by the British Transport Police. He claims that pre-flight searches of aircraft "are unlikely to uncover concealed explosives"; actually, they're very likely to uncover them. He says that "random searches of rail passengers by police are unlikely to detect terrorist activity". Detect, perhaps not; but deter, certainly. If terrorists planning an attack see an active police presence around their intended target, they are likely to rethink their plans.

It's enormously difficult to protect every public area terrorists might regard as a high-value target, but I can't agree with Mr Bevan's suggestion that the solution is to remove completely security measures.

I also hope that the BTP's searches aren't completely random. In light of what we know about the current threat, it would appear reasonable to look particularly closely at young men carrying bags. This, of course, is where it gets difficult: recent terrorists in the UK have been from our Asian communities, which means that "being of Asian appearance" may be one factor in a decision to stop-and-search. As long as it's not the only factor, I don't believe that's racist, any more than it's ageist and sexist to target young men. But it clearly does place an extra burden on some sections of our society, and we have to ask for their forbearance and understanding.

Mr Bevan thinks security searches are pointless and should be abandoned. If they were, we would have regular terrorist attacks, with hundreds or perhaps thousands killed each year. Given a choice between that and the occasional minor intrusion into my privacy, I know which I prefer.

Doug Maughan, 52 Menteith View, Dunblane.

Neil McNamara (Letters, December 22) is right to recall the "can't pay, won't pay" campaign against the poll tax when considering likely resistance to the national ID scheme.

There are several similarities between the poll tax and the ID scheme: both are taxes on existence; both intrude on domestic arrangements; both were fated to suffer from dramatic increases in hostility once people became aware of what was going on. But, most significantly, the poll tax and ID scheme both rely on the active cooperation of the whole population if they are to have any chance of working. The can't pay, won't pay campaign showed how vulnerable the government is when it requires our cooperation. But lessons have been learned. The Home Office is determined not to have newspapers reporting on grannies in court as ID martyrs.

To neutralise resistance, the identity cards Act is written in such a way that refusal to register will not be a criminal offence. Instead, the government is relying on denial of services, such as provision of passports, to force initial registration. Then civil penalties - fines issued by the Home Office without judicial oversight - will be used to enforce subsequent compliance with reporting requirements.

The Home Office intends to deny refuseniks a day in court, but its strategy may backfire. It has left the door open for people to resist without breaking the law. If enough people do resist, the scheme is doomed to certain failure.

To help matters along, NO2ID has just launched a new pledge; an undertaking to be made by anyone in the presence of a witness. Full details of the pledge are at www.no2id.net/pledge. NO2ID will continue campaigning for the repeal of the identity cards Act and an end to the database state.

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