The UK government’s digital identity scheme arrives, dead on arrival

It was interesting that the Labour Party Annual Conference in Liverpool last week did not talk about digital identity schemes. This is the party in government who, days before the conference started, announced that all people who wanted to work in Britain would need a digital ID in their government app.

Like the National Insurance scheme, where all citizens have a working number – think social security numbers if you’re American – the digital ID would be the next phase. It all sounded wowy but nobby. Why? Because it’s been discussed for years and has never worked.

Going way back, I remember making a presentation in Eastern Europe and mentioning identity schemes, and a voice in the room piped up saying: “we used to have these schemes … we don’t like them”. Interestingly, neither do the Brits as three million people have already voted against the digital ID scheme proposed by Labour although, as a friend pointed out, how many of those votes came from bots?

What’s weird is that we all know that we need protection, security and some form of identity scheme, the thing is what scheme do we want?

What do we want?

Security!

When do we want it?

When someone can work out how to do it!

One of the most interesting comments about these things came from my old mucker (ed: note the spelling is with an m) Dave Birch who is quoted in The Independent as saying that we need an identity infrastructure but not an ID card.

Mr Birch said he was keen to distinguish the difference between his support for an improved digital ID infrastructure and a digital ID card. He said instead of people being asked to prove their ID, they should be asked to present a verifiable credential.

This takes me back to the core argument of not creating identity schemes run by governments and banks, but creating infrastructure where I can prove I am me and you are you using a verifiable credential, such as a documented or notarised item (think passports and similar) that is tokenized.

This means that, at the point you need to know that I am me, I give you access to my digital item for a limited time. You can see my passport for 24 hours or my utility bills for 12 hours or my driving licence for 6 hours … whatever, but what you see is the token of those credentials, not the items themselves. You do not see my passport or bills or licence. You see the fact that they exist, have been noted by a credible authority and verify that I am me.

It’s the evolution of ZKP (Zero Knowledge Proof) technologies which, as I’ve mentioned before, are just like Where’s Wally. I give you access to that piece of my identity you need to see for that moment in time. You don’t get the rest. You just get that piece for a limited time.

The fact that the citizen controls their ID is the most important idea here. Why should governments and institutions tell me who I am? I know who I am and can prove it, so don’t keep telling me about ID cards, utility bills, passports and more; tell me about how I can have control of my life digitally, and secure it in a democratised and distributed structure.

Meantime, going back to my Labour friends, they tried this scheme in 2010. Whatever happened to that?

It was 16 years ago, on a platform at St Pancras International in central London, when home secretary Alan Johnson stood proudly and flashed a new identity card for the British, calling it a “no-brainer”.

The non-compulsory biometric card was a watered-down version of the Tony Blair government’s initial idea for a national ID card but, still, Johnson said it would combat fraud and allow holders, who would pay £30 for the privilege, to travel in Europe without a passport.

But less than 100 days later, following the arrival of the [new] coalition government, a new home secretary, Theresa May, vowed to “consign the intrusive ID card scheme to history”.

Looks like it’s all going to happen again.

 

Postscript: the government scheme is so dead that it led to the deletion of Have I got news for you, one of my favourite TV shows. This is because the programme stated that Tony Blair's son Euan had got the contract for his firm, Multiverse, to develop the ID system. But then fact-checking company FullFact found this to be untrue: "The government has not announced any partner for the project. It's understood the government expects digital ID to be designed, built and run by an in-house team, not outsourced to external suppliers, although there has been some media speculation about whether the scheme may create opportunities for other tech firms."

Postscript 2: there will be digital identity 3.0 coming soon ...