The group – comprising more than 100 academics and outside
experts in the fields of law, technology, information systems,
government policy, business, economics and security – is hoping for
public debate and comment on its suggestions before the publication
of a report on the Government’s plans, due at the end of June.
An interim report published by the
LSE
in March
identified serious flaws in the Government’s scheme and called for
the
ID
Card Bill, which was reintroduced into
Parliament last month, to be scrapped.
LSE
's proposal
Under the
LSE
model, individuals looking for an
ID
card would go to an authorised facility such as a
post office, where they would be able to create a coded application
form, using a digital photo and basic
ID
information,
in an electronic kiosk. A temporary Government file containing this
data would be stored.
The individual would then have the form endorsed by two or three
referees, similar to passport application forms today, and hand the
form back to the authorised facility.
The form would then be checked, processed and a card issued. The
card would contain a unique identifying number, although this
master identifier would still be dormant.
The card would then be taken to a trusted third party – the
LSE
suggests a bank, police station or solicitor’s
office – local to the individual. There the card would be connected
to the original temporary file and, if the codes match, the card
would be validated and the identifier activated.
All data, says the
LSE
, would then be deleted from
the Government’s temporary file except the name, code and card
number. But the trusted third party would retain a copy of all the
card data.
The individual could then use the master identifier to create a
number of tailored but verified identities for use in different
situations. He would also be able to update the information held by
the trusted third party.
The alternative model has been designed to take account of 13
principles that should, according to the
LSE
, govern
any national
ID
card scheme. These state that an
identity system should:
- Be proportionate;
- Be inspired by clear and specific goals;
- Be transparent;
- Require identity disclosure only when necessary;
- Serve the individual;
- Be more than just a card – so that it allows electronic
delivery of benefits and services;
- Ensure that personal information is controlled by the
individual;
- Use empathetic and responsive registration;
- Ensure that stolen or compromised identity or biometric
credentials can be revoked;
- Ensure that
ID
numbers are invisible and
restricted – to limit function creep;
- Allow for multiple authenticated electronic identities – so
that individuals can create
ID
credentials, with
differing amounts of information, for particular purposes;
- Avoid reliance on a central registry of personal data as much
as possible; and
- Allow individuals to backup the data on their card, securely
and privately.
