Exploring an ID scheme
(Up to: Proles And Technology Society Is ATechnology Thing Watching The UKGovernment IDCards )
There is a great deal of ongoing discussion about the government's intentions to introduce a national Entitlement/ID card system. I believe that, rather than simply pooh-poohing the idea, it is important to a). realise the multitude of factors that make up this complicated issue, and then to b). consider how a system should work based on these factors.
Thus, this page is kind of like a "playground" of ideas and thoughts on the matter. Man, I need a Wiki... ;)
Useful link: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/comrace/identitycards/
See also other people's (informed) points of view: IDScheme Reports.
Why might we need an ID system?
Because we can? Because trust doesn't scale, at least not at the rate that technology, which provides us with a means of extremist certainty, has been introduced.
What should an ID system achieve?
I think we can kind of split the picture up into three "functional actors", the interactions of which define the needs of an ID system. We have
- . The services. These are the resources that provide something to the users from the government, such as benefits services, transport services and the ilk.
- . The legitimate users. These are the people that use the services as intended.
- . The illegitimate users. These are the people that the government wants to filter from the above group of users, that shouldn't be using the services.
What else can an ID system achieve?
Devil's advocate time.
How can it do this?
Control of personal data. Keep it simple. Open design, closed access. Deny all except those allowed by the information owner.
Notes from a Small E-mail
What's your main gripe about this?
In short, the government is looking to use a technical solution to various social problems, using technology that I have no faith in, while ignoring the social solutions completely. I can see where they're coming from, but I think it's a small-minded solution to much larger problems, kind of like using a hammer to squash ants in your kitchen, when really you should find out where they're coming from.
But, to expand in no particular order...
The governmental discussion surrounding the issue - in both technological and political terms - has been pretty absent. The "consultation" period might as well as not have been - the arguments and technology put forward by the government are still the same as the ones being peddled years ago, absent of any real rational thinking as to the implementation or the social effects.
The government haven't shown any proof that they've actually considered any of the downfalls of the technology they propose, preferring to see it in some utopian light of unbreakable perfection. Nor have they published any public details (AFAIK) as to what technology's being used, or how the system will work at all levels in terms of data security, etc.
They also seem to have disregarded the constant battle for progression that relying on technology always ends up in - think anti-virus software, for example. Official documents, and forgerey thereof, is generally a technology race between producers and forgers, or at least ends up that way if you don't consider this explicitly...
Not everything has a technical solution, and it seems that many of the problems that ID cards are intended to solve would actually be better dealt with if seen in a non-technical light. Terrorism is a prime example, as it emerges from severe political and inter-personal clashes. Using tech to solve these problems is doing nothing to actually face the underlying causes of the problems.
4b. Relying on technical solutions to political and social problems is, IMHO, a negative path, as it merely proves that a government is incapable of improving a society through other means. At the end of this scale, controlling technology is manifested as two main components - monitoring (preventative), and force (curative). It's very difficult to argue against either, once in place, as developing greater technology is implausible.
(See also: Mapping Emergent Conversationalists )
