British national identity card

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Identity Cards Act 2006)
Jump to: navigation, search
 This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality.
Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.

Enabling legislation for the British national identity card was passed under the Identity Cards Act 2006.[1] The multi-billion pound scheme[2] has yet to enter procurement. The cards will have a lesser role than the database they are linked to, which is known as the National Identity Register (NIR). The Act specifies fifty categories of information that the NIR can hold on each citizen,[3] including up to 10 fingerprints, digitised facial scan and iris scan, current and past UK and overseas places of residence of all residents of the UK throughout their lives and indices to other Government databases - which would allow them to be connected. The legislation also says that any further information can be added.[4]

The legislation further says that those renewing or applying for passports must be entered on to the NIR. It is expected that this will happen soon after the UK Passport Service, which has now been renamed the Identity and Passport Service (IPS), start interviewing passport applicants to verify their identity.[5] Various degrees of concern about the scheme have been expressed by human rights lawyers, activists, security professionals and IT experts.

Contents

On October 11, 2006, the Government announced a timescale described as "highly ambitious" by computer experts.[6] The Home Office said they will publish an ID management action plan in the months from November 2006, followed by agreements with departments on their uses for the system. There will be a report on potential private sector uses for the scheme before 2007 Budget.

On September 25, 2006, Home Office Minister Liam Byrne said that "There are opportunities which give me optimism to think that actually there is a way of exploiting systems already in place in a way which brings down the costs quite substantially".[7]

Emails leaked in June 2006[8] indicate that the plan is already in difficulty, with plans for the early introduction of a limited register and ID card with reduced biometrics known as the 'early variant' described as a "huge risk".

The schedule for putting passport applicants' and renewers' details on the National Identity Register (NIR) has not been and may never be announced. Interview offices started opening in June 2007 for new passport applicants and it is not known whether details of (for example) their bank records are being kept and recorded. Fingerprints are not yet being taken and iris scans much later.

Applicants will be able to opt out of having a card issued until 2010, although they cannot opt out of having their details recorded on the NIR. Identity cards will be compulsory for anyone getting a new or renewed passport after January, 2010. Registration will become compulsory for non-UK passport holders resident in the UK by 2013. The Home Office currently estimates ID cards will be available from 2009.[9]

Initial attempts to introduce an identity card were made under the Conservative administration of John Major, under Home Secretary Michael Howard. At the Labour party conference in 1995, Tony Blair demanded that ‘instead of wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on compulsory ID cards as the Tory Right demand, let that money provide thousands more police officers on the beat in our local communities.’[10] This proposal was halted once the Conservatives lost the 1997 election.

A proposal for ID cards, to be called 'entitlement cards', was initially revived by the Home Secretary at the time David Blunkett following the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack on the New York World Trade Center,[11] but was reportedly opposed by Cabinet colleagues. However, rising concerns about identity theft and the misuse of public services led to a proposal in February 2002 for the introduction of entitlement cards to be used to obtain social security services and a consultation paper, Entitlement Cards and Identity Fraud, was published by the Home Office on 3 July 2002.[12] A public consultation process followed, which resulted in a majority of submission by organisations being in favour of a scheme to verify a person's identity accurately. However, it was clear that the ability to properly identify a person to their true identity was central to the proposal's operation, with wider implications for operations against crime and terrorism.

In 2003, Blunkett announced that the government intend to introduce a 'British national identity card' linked to a national identity database, the National Identity Register. The proposals were included in the November 2003 Queen's Speech, despite doubts over the ability of the scheme to prevent terrorism. Feedback from the consultation exercise indicated that the term 'entitlement card' was superficially softer and warmer, but less familiar and ‘weasely’, and consequently the euphemism was dropped in favour of identity cards.[13]

During a private seminar for the Fabian Society in August 2005, Tony McNulty, the minister in charge of the scheme, stated 'perhaps in the past the government, in its enthusiasm, oversold the advantages of identity cards,' and that they 'did suggest, or at least implied, that they might well be a panacea for identity fraud, for benefit fraud, terrorism, entitlement and access to public services'. He suggested that they should be seen as 'a gold standard in proving your identity'.[14] Documentation released by the Home Office demonstrated analysis conducted with the private and public sector showed the benefits of the proposed identity card scheme could be quantified at £650m to £1.1bn a year, with a number of other, less quantifiable, strategic benefits - such as disrupting the activities of organised crime and terrorist groups.[15]

The Identity Cards Bill was included in the Queen's Speech on November 23, 2004, and introduced to the House of Commons on November 29.

It was first voted on by Members of Parliament following the second reading of the bill on December 20, 2004, where it passed by 385 votes to 93. The bill was opposed by 19 Labour MPs, 10 Conservative MPs, and the Liberal Democrats, while a number of Labour and Conservative members abstained, in defiance of party policies. A separate vote on a proposal to reject the Bill was defeated by 306 votes to 93. Charles Clarke, the new Home Secretary, had earlier rejected calls to postpone the reading of the Bill following his recent appointment.

The third reading of the bill in the Commons was approved on February 11, 2005 by 224 votes to 64; a majority of 160. Although being in favour in principle, the Conservatives officially abstained, but 11 of their MPs joined 19 labour MPs in voting against the Government. The Bill then passed to the House of Lords, however there was insufficient time to debate the matter, and were unable to do a deal with the Conservatives in the short time available in the days before Parliament was dissolved on April 11, following the announcement of the next General Election on May 5, 2005.[16]

Labour's manifesto for the 2005 election stated that, if returned to power, they would introduce ID cards, including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports. In public speeches and on the campaign trail, Labour made clear that they would bring the same Bill back to Parliament. In contrast, the Liberal Democrat manifesto opposed the idea because ID cards don’t work, while the Conservatives made no mention of the issue.

Following their 2005 election victory, the Labour Government introduced a new Identity Cards Bill, substantially the same as the previous Bill, into the Commons on May 25. The Conservatives have now joined the Liberal Democrats in opposing the Bill, saying that it does not pass their 'five tests'. These tests include confidence that the scheme can be made to work, and its impact on civil liberties. In December 2005 the Conservatives elected a new leader, David Cameron, who opposes ID cards in principle.

The second reading of the Bill on Tuesday June 28 was passed, 314 votes to 283, a majority of 31.

At its third reading in the Commons on October 18, the majority in favour fell to 25, with 309 votes in favour to 284 against.[17] In the Report stage between the readings, the Bill was amended to prevent the National Identity Register database being linked to the Police National Computer.

In early 2006, the Bill was passed through the House of Lords committee stage, where 279 amendments were considered. One outcome of this was a vote demanding that the Government instruct the National Audit Office to provide a full costing of the scheme over its first ten years, and another demanding that a 'secure and reliable method' of recording and storing the data should be found. A third defeat limited the potential for ID cards to be required before people can access public services.[18] On 23 January the House of Lords defeated the government by backing a fully voluntary scheme.[19]

The committee stage ended on January 30, and the third reading of the Bill took place on February 6, after which it returned to the Commons. There, on February 18, the legislation was carried by a majority of 25, with 25 Labour MPs joining those opposing it. Following the defeats in the Lords, the government changed the Bill in order to require separate legislation to make the cards compulsory, however an amendment to make it possible to apply for a biometric passport without having to register on the National Identity Register database was defeated, overturning the Lords' changes to make the Bill fully voluntary. The Lords' amendment requiring a National Audit Office report was rejected.

The Bill returned to the Lords on March 6, where the Commons amendments were reversed by a majority of 61.[20] The defeat came despite ministers warning that the Lords should follow the Salisbury Convention by refraining from blocking a manifesto commitment. Both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats stated generally in 2005 that they no longer feel bound to abide by the convention, while in this specific case several Lords have stated that it would not apply as the manifesto commitment was for implementation on a "voluntary basis" as passports are renewed, rather than being compulsory as passports are renewed.

Subsequent votes:

  • March 13: House of Commons - majority of 33 for Government (310 to 277)[21]
  • March 15: House of Lords - majority of 35 against Government (218 to 183)[22]
  • March 16: House of Commons - majority of 51 for Government (292 to 241)[23]
  • March 20: House of Lords - majority of 36 against Government (211 to 175)[24]
  • March 21: House of Commons - majority of 43 for Government (284 to 241)[25]

But on March 29, the House of Lords voted in favour of a new plan with a majority of 227 (287 to 60).[26] Under this scheme, everyone renewing a passport from 2008 will be issued an ID card and have their details placed on the national ID card database. The Government has said that until 2010, people can choose not to be issued a card, though they will still have to pay for one, and still be placed on the database.

The Bill received Royal Assent and entered the statute book on 30 March 2006 as the Identity Cards Act 2006.

Compulsory identity cards were first issued in the United Kingdom during World War I, and abandoned in 1919. Cards were re-introduced during World War II under the National Registration Act 1939, but were abandoned seven years after the end of that war in 1952, amid widespread public resentment. Opposition reached its peak with the 1951 court case of Willcock v Muckle, after Clarence Henry Willcock refused to produce his identity card. The judge in the case said that the cards were an "annoyance" and "tended to turn law-abiding subjects into law breakers".

Whilst at least 21 of 27 other countries in the EU have some form of ID card, these are either not compulsory, not biometric or not linked to a national database & unique identifier[citation needed].

If introduced, Britain would become only the fifth common law country to adopt ID cards in peacetime, after Cyprus, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore.

There has been an international move towards the introduction of biometrics into identity and travel documents. The ICAO has recommended that all countries adopt biometric passports, and the United States has made it a future requirement for entering the US under the visa waiver programme. Biometric border control systems have been established in the United States and the United Arab Emirates and the EU is introducing biometric visas. Australia is looking at introducing a Health and social services access card.

In relation to the EU dimension to this issue, during the UK Presidency of the EU in 2005 a decision was made to: "Agree common standards for security features and secure issuing procedures for ID cards (December 2005), with detailed standards agreed as soon as possible thereafter. In this respect, the UK Presidency has put forward a proposal for EU-wide use of biometrics in national ID cards."[27]

Under the NIR UK Residents will be required to:

  • Attend in person to be photographed, have their fingerprints taken and iris scanned.
  • Promptly inform the police or Home Office if a card is lost or damaged.
  • Promptly inform the National Identity Register of any change of address.
  • Promptly inform the National Identity Register of significant changes to their personal life.

For full details of the information that will be contained on the National Identity Register see Information to be contained on the National Identity Register.

Key to the ID Card scheme will be a centralised computer database, the National Identity Register (NIR). To identify someone it will not always be necessary to check their card, since identity could be determined by a taking a biometric scan and matching it against a database entry.

The Home Office has said ID cards will be issued and the National Identity Register will be in place by 2009.

One entry on the NIR is the Identity Registration Number. The Home Office have recognised that a unique identifier is needed as a primary key for the database.

The Home Office Benefits Overview document[28] describes how the IRN enables data sharing amongst police databases (including the Police DNA database), legal databases, and even corporate databases (including bank and travel operators).

Failure to inform the Government of a change of address or other personal details will result in a fine of £1,000. Fines for refusing to register have been removed until a later Bill; instead passports and/or other designated documents (eg driving licence) may be denied. Failure to inform the Government if the card is tampered with, damaged, lost or stolen may result in a prison sentence of up to 51 weeks.[29]

The announcement of the scheme has seen a mixed reaction from both the public and from figures connected to terrorism and law enforcement.

For a detailed account of Opinion Polls concerning the National Identity Card see Opinion Polls on British National Identity Card.

Over a period of time, public opinion, as measured by opinion polls, appears to have shifted away from support for the scheme towards opposition. This appears to have become more of a concern since the disclosure of the loss of 15 million records by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) in November 2007 (see 2007 UK Child Benefit data scandal).

In 2003, the announcement of the scheme was followed by a public consultation exercise, particularly among 'stakeholder groups'. At March 2003 the government stated that the overall results were:

in favour: 2606 responses (61%)
against: 1587 responses (38%)
neutral: 48 responses (1%)

By July 2006, an ICM poll[30] indicated that public support had fallen to 46%, with opposition at 51%:

A further poll by YouGov/Daily Telegraph, published on December 4, 2006, indicated support for the identity card element of the scheme at 50%, with 39% opposed. Support for the national database was weaker, with 22% happy and 78% unhappy with the prospect of having their data recorded. Only 11% trusted the government to keep the data confidential. 3.12% of the sample were prepared to undergo long prison sentences rather than have a card.[31]

Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the former head of Britain's counter-intelligence and security agency MI5 is on record in her support of the introduction of identity cards, as is Sir Ian Blair, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and his predecessor, Sir John (now Lord) Stevens. The Association of Chief Police Officers are also supportive.

However, in November 2005 Dame Stella Rimington, who was Director General of MI5 before Eliza Manningham-Buller, questioned the usefulness of the proposed scheme.[32] This intervention caused a good deal of controversy amongst supporters and opponents of the scheme, especially as Manningham-Buller stated that ID cards would in fact disrupt the activities of terrorists, noting that significant numbers of terrorists take advantage of the weaknesses of current identification methods to assist their activities.

Lord Carlile was appointed on 11 September 2001 to independently review the working of British Terrorism Act and subsequent anti-terrorist laws.[33] Talking on GMTV on 29 January 2006, he expressed his views on the proposed legislation, saying[34] that ID cards could be of limited value in the fight against terrorism but that Parliament had to judge that value against the curtailment of civil liberties. Speaking on the same programme, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, former Met Police Commissioner, argued in favour for the need for identity cards, saying they had benefits in tackling serious crimes, such as money laundering and identity theft.

Independent studies including one by the London School of Economics have suggested that costs could be as much as £12 billion to £18 billion. The reliability of this study has been challenged by the Government which disputed some of the assumptions used in the calculations such as the need to retake biometric information every 5 years. The government argued that this assumption had not been supported by any research in the London School of Economics report, and that biometric experts quoted in the LSE reports have sought to distance themselves from its findings. The Government also claimed that the authors of these estimates are established opponents to the scheme and cannot be considered unbiased academic sources.[35]

Tony McNulty, Home Office minister responsible for the scheme, responded by saying a "ceiling" on costs would be announced in October 2005.[36] There are now indications that the Government is looking at ways of subsidising the scheme by charging other Government Departments, with the implication that this would result in increased charges for other Government services to individuals or businesses.[37]

After the general election the Home Office stated that it would cost £584 million a year to run the scheme. In October 2006, the Government declared it would cost £5.4bn to run the ID cards scheme for the next 10 years.[38] In May 2007 the Home Office forecast a cost rise of £400m to £5.3 billion,[39] a figure revised in November 2007 to £5.612bn.[40]

The Government has abandoned plans for a giant new computer system to run the national identity card scheme. Instead of a single multi billion pound system, information will be held on three existing, separate databases.[41]

David Blunkett himself stated that "ID Cards won't stop terrorism", however he does support the introduction of identity cards. His successor, Charles Clarke, said the same in the aftermath of the 7 July 2005 London bombings,[42] but claimed that they might help identify the perpetrators. The existence of ID cards in Spain did not prevent the Madrid train bombings. The existence of a single definitive identity register may make it easier for people to assume a false identity.[citation needed]

The Government's Race Equality Impact Assessment[43] indicates significant concern among ethnic groups over how the Police would use their powers under an Identity Cards Act, with 64% of black and 53% of Indian respondents expressing concern, particularly about the potential for abuse and discrimination. In their January 2005 report[44] on the Bill, the Commission for Racial Equality stated that the fear of discrimination is neither misconceived nor exaggerated, and note that this is also an ongoing issue in Germany, the Netherlands and France.

The CRE are also concerned that disproportionate requirement by employers and the authorities for ethnic minorities to identify themselves may create a two tiered structure amongst racial groups, with foreign nationals and British ethnic minorities feeling compelled to register while British white people do not.

According to the CRE, certain groups who move location frequently and who tend to live on low incomes (such as Gypsies, travellers, asylum-seekers and refugees) risk being criminalised under the legislation through failing to update their registration each time they move due to lack of funds to pay the fee that may be charged.

In a press release on July 30, 2004,[45] Richard Thomas the Information Commissioner stated that a NIR raise substantial data protection and personal privacy concerns. He sought clarification of why so much personal information needed to be kept as part of establishing an individual's identity and indicated concern about the wide range of bodies who would view the records of services individuals have used. The Commissioner has also pointed out that those who renew or apply for a driving licence or passport will be automatically added to the National Identity Register, so losing the option of not registering. He subsequently stated: My anxiety is that we don't sleepwalk into a surveillance society .[46] In February 2003, on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, he warned that ID cards could become a target for identiy theft by organised crime.

On February 2, 2005, Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights questioned the compatibility of the Bill with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to respect for private life) and Article 14 (the right to non-discrimination),[47] both of which are encapsulated with the UK's own Human Rights Act.

Even without new primary legislation, the Identity Cards Act allows the potential scope of the scheme to be much greater than that usually publicised by the Government.

For example, Gordon Brown was reported to be "planning a massive expansion of the ID cards project that would widen surveillance of everyday life by allowing high-street businesses to share confidential information with police databases."[48] He apparently described how "police could be alerted as soon as a wanted person used a biometric-enabled cash card or even entered a building via an iris-scan door."[49]

The British ID cards went from 3 functions during World War II to 39 by the time it was abolished.[50]

Concerns have also been raised following Tony Blair's response to an ID card petition stating that the fingerprint register would be used to compare the fingerprints of the population at large against the records of 900,000 unsolved crimes.

Opposition MPs claim that the use of the biometric data in this way directly breaches promises given during the Commons debate that there would be adequate safeguards preventing the use of ID card data for "fishing expeditions".[51][52]

The amount of data which can be recorded on the NIR is unlimited. Home Office forecasts envisage that "265 government departments and as many as 48,000 accredited private sector organisations" would have access to the database, and that 163 million identity verifications or more may take place each year.[53]

The CRE have also recommended that more work is required to protect the interests of vulnerable individuals. For example, women escaping a violent lover or a forced marriage may be at risk if their previous names or addresses are disclosed.

Tony Blair said "ID cards are needed to stop the soaring costs of identity theft" in May 2005.[54] However, security experts have claimed that placing trust in a single document may make identity theft easier, since only this document needs to be targeted.[55]

Falsely obtaining such a 'secure' identity becomes very valuable because people are less likely to question its validity. This has happened in Australia, where identity theft has risen above British levels since the introduction of a widely used Tax File Number. Identity theft surrounding the Social Security Number is also a major problem in the USA. However, it can be argued that part of the problem in these countries arises from the lack of a national ID card as no positive identification exists which links one to one's unique ID number such as the Social Security Number. It is the lack of such means of identification, not necessarily the existence of the unique number itself, which promotes ID theft since there are no easily available means to verify one's SSN (such as a card with a person's SSN and photograph).

However, others[Who?] claim that such comparisons cannot be directly compared with the introduction of identity cards and point out that such critiques usually offer not any alternative solutions to identity theft as it continues to grow.[citation needed]

Opponents to the scheme state that in order to apply for the new identity cards, existing documents such as passports will be used to prove identity; however, such identification is proficiently forged, allowing identity thieves posing as someone else to apply for cards. While new applications could be made using false documentation, existing cards and database entries would also be targets. Supporters note that such claims ignore that actual process, which allows for electronic checks of applications rather than a solely paper based system.

The NIR database would make an attractive target for computer hackers. Opponents also claim that any system involving human operators is liable to social engineering attacks, infiltration or bribery or blackmail of staff. Supporters claim that there are potential ways of organising working processes to stop such attacks.

Due to the supposed security of the British system, proving that your identity has been stolen could prove problematic. If a person's biometric information is discovered and exploited by an identity thief the subject has little recourse, since such information by definition cannot be changed or reissued.

In addition to problems affecting the database, there may be the tampering or superficial forging of the actual biometric identity cards. In a recent case in Germany, criminals forged an ID card that included biometric data.[56]

A number of academics also point to problems of removing human interaction from security systems. Such problems can be seen with Chip and PIN credit card systems.[57] While not a criticism of the technology itself, the work notes that operators cannot simply leave the security up to the technology and must remain vigilant in preventing suspicious behaviour.

Elsewhere, doubts remain concerning the practicability of the scheme, relying on unproven technologies such as iris scanning, and even the very best system will be liable to a small error rate. In some cases this error rate can disproportionately affect certain ethnic minorities (eg Afro-Caribbeans, for iris scanning). Existing government systems are not appropriate for the issuing to UK citizens from 2009.[58]

In May 2006, NO2ID launched the "Renew for Freedom" campaign,[59] urging passport holders to renew their passports in the summer of 2006 to delay being entered on the National Identity Register. This followed the comment made by Charles Clarke in the House of Commons that anyone who feels strongly enough about the linkage [between passports and the ID scheme] not to want to be issued with an ID card in the initial phase will be free to surrender their existing passport and apply for a new passport before the designation order takes effect.[60]

In response, the Home Office said that it was hard to see what would be achieved, other than incurring unnecessary expense by renewing passports early.[61] However, it should be remembered that the cost of a passport was set to rise in October 2006 and nearly double once identity cards are introduced.

On 14 November 2007, the NO2ID opposition group called for financial donations from the 11,360 people who had pledged to contribute to a fighting fund opposing the legislation.[62] The organisation plans to challenge the statutory instruments that will be brought in to enable the ID card scheme.[63]



  1. ^ Identity Cards Act 2006, Office of Public Sector Information, accessed October 14, 2007
  2. ^ [1]
  3. ^ [2]
  4. ^ [3]
  5. ^ [4]
  6. ^ [5]
  7. ^ [6]
  8. ^ [7]
  9. ^ [8]
  10. ^ [9]
  11. ^ BBC News: A question of identity, 25 September 2001
  12. ^ Entitlement Cards and Identity Fraud - A Consultation Paper, 3 July 2003
  13. ^ A Summary of Findings from the Consultation Exercise on Entitlement Cards and Identity Fraud, page 45, November 2002
  14. ^ Labour admits ID card 'oversell', 4 August 2005
  15. ^ [10]
  16. ^ [11]
  17. ^ [12]
  18. ^ [13]
  19. ^ [14]
  20. ^ [15]
  21. ^ [16]
  22. ^ [17]
  23. ^ [18]
  24. ^ [19]
  25. ^ [20]
  26. ^ [21]
  27. ^ [22]
  28. ^ [23]
  29. ^ [24]
  30. ^ [25]
  31. ^ [26]
  32. ^ [27]
  33. ^ [28]
  34. ^ [29]
  35. ^ LSE: ID Cards - UK's high tech scheme is high risk [30]
  36. ^ (BBC)
  37. ^ [31]
  38. ^ [32]
  39. ^ BBC News: ID card cost rises above £5bn
  40. ^ BBC NEWS: ID card scheme 'to cost £5.6bn'
  41. ^ "Giant ID computer plan scrapped", BBC News, British Broadcasting Corporation, 2006-12-19. Retrieved on 2007-12-22. 
  42. ^ [33]
  43. ^ pdf
  44. ^ doc
  45. ^ (.doc file)
  46. ^ [34]
  47. ^ [35]
  48. ^ [36]
  49. ^ [37]
  50. ^ [38]
  51. ^ [39]
  52. ^ [40]
  53. ^ [41]
  54. ^ [42]
  55. ^ [43]
  56. ^ ID cards. Lynne Featherstone. Retrieved on September 8, 2006.
  57. ^ [44]
  58. ^ [45]
  59. ^ [46]
  60. ^ [47]
  61. ^ [48]
  62. ^ Calling in NO2ID's pledge "refuse", 14 November 2007
  63. ^ No2ID calls in pledge cash to 'probe' ID Act's enabling laws, 15 November 2007

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_national_identity_card"
Advanced Search
Included Web Search Engines


Safe Search

close

Top Matching Results

Occasionally Search.com will highlight specialized results that are based on the context of your query. Examples of specialized results include specific links to news, images, or video.

Top Matching Results may highlight information from other Search.com pages, content from the CNET Network of sites, or third party content. The listings are based purely on relevance. Search.com does not receive payment for listings in this section but our partners that provide this data may get paid for listing these products.

Sponsored Links

This section contains paid listings which have been purchased by companies that want to have their sites appear for specific search terms and related content. These listings are administered, sorted and maintained by a third party and are not endorsed by Search.com.

Search Results

Search.com sends your search query to several search engines at one time and integrates the results into one list which has been sorted by relevance using Search.com's proprietary algorithm. You can customize the list of search engines included in your metasearch from the preferences.

The search engines that are used in your metasearch may allow companies to pay to have their Web sites included within the results. To view the Paid Inclusion policy for a specific search engine, please visit their Web site. Search.com does not accept payment or share revenue with any search engine partner for listings in this section.