ID Cards 2: A solution to what, exactly?
Vox Profession, Vox Dei, or Reductio ad absurdum. It's all just bloggin' to me, man.
My previous post on ID cards generated quite a few comments, and certainly verified my view that it is an emotive topic. The difficulty is differentiating between professional, personal and political viewpoints. The BCS does not lobby on behalf of members, but makes use of member's professional expertise to inform for the benefit of the public. That certainly includes being critical where it is necessary.
...but where does that line begin and end?
I was interested to see a BMJ editorial suggesting that having kids is bad for the environment, and asking whether GPs should start advising patients along those lines. I was entertained by The Register's response, which basically suggested that Doctors should stick to their own area. It is easy for us to run the same risk of overstepping our collective expertise, which just ends in us looking foolish. The BCS should not worry overmuch about upsetting people where necessary, but it must be a last resort, and on ground where we are a recognised authority.
Are we a recognised authority on civil liberties? Are we experts on the socio-political impacts of identity cards? Well, actually we do have people in the membership with expertise in these areas. Part of professionalism is taking a wider responsibility beyond the bounds of technology - the application and effect of IT.
So we aren't terribly happy about where things are with ID cards. The official position is that we feel there is a "...lack of clarity and transparency over purpose, implementation and future plans" and that this needs to be rectified. It's hard to comment on whether we think the scheme is a good idea, when we really don't know what is being proposed, but we can certainly say that this lack of basic information is a *really* bad idea, and that tendering for contracts without this being made clear is an extremely bad idea. In the book of 'how to botch up a large project', starting without agreed requirements has an entire chapter. However, let me quote Paul's comment to you on the previous post:
"The BCS produced a very creditable report (link in main article) on this whole subject. Since these issues are of huge importance to the public, has the society considered how best to contribute to the public debate? Has there been a high profile press release, with suitably eminent experts speaking to the media about our reservations? I hope I didn't miss it :-)"
I take the point, and I hope we will give the issue a higher profile. There is a question of a sort of 'effects-based' doctrine. We need to make our public and private approaches at the right points. Sound and fury with no outcome may make people feel better, but surely we are only effective when we see an effect! Campaigning to change policy (rather than just to raise your profile) is a subtle art; principles and pragmatism dancing on a pin together. I know that sounds a bit weaselly, but it is true.
On the other hand, the only real way of judging effect is through hindsight, so sometimes you just have to go for it. In other words, you risk undermining your credibility if you take a stand...or if you don't. Welcome to the wonderful world of politics!
Let me finish with another quote from a comment on the previous entry:
"If you'd gone over that post you could have shortened it to a couple of paragraphs for all the value it contains."
Oh dear, I've just done it again, haven't I.
Search this blog
Comments (18)
Leave CommentYou have to admire the government's confidence. Despite a lack of general support for their ID card scheme, they don't seem to mind providing yet more ammunition to those against the scheme. Yesterday's story (http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=conWebDoc.20391) on the theft of 3000 blank epassports would probably be the last nail in the coffin of a scheme plagued by secuity worries but no doubt they'll reassure themselves that it isn't relevant and won't happen again. Yet stealing 3000 cards is bound to be easier than stealing 3000 passports.
Report Comment
Depending on how ID cards fit into the infrastructure, stolen blank ones could be next to useless. However, if they are used as flash-cards rather than with independent verification (i.e. a check back to the uber-database) then you won't need to steal one to fake one. On the other hand, if they are used together with an authentication system similar to chip-and-pin, what happens when that system fails? What services are you no longer able to access?
Report Comment
If the question is: "A solution to what, exactly?" I would suggest the answer could be any of: a) Political over-control of the populace b) Spending (wasting) vast sums of money with 'friendly' consultancies or c) Proving the 'powers that be' don't have a clue in what is needed or how to put it in place Recalling the thought "Don't put down to malice that which can be explained by pure incompetence" IMHO, naturally
Report Comment
Are we overstepping the mark commenting on ID cards? Absolutely NOT. We are all members of this nation and have a right to comment on civil liberties both individualy and as collective professions. Doubly, the IT profession will be doing a great deal of the work to implement this, we do have a responsibility to make ethical judgements on the work we are doing, it is never enough to say 'we were told to do it'. In many professions people refuse to undertake work in certain ways due to ethical and moral objections and this is not just a right - it is a responsibility. It is also important that anyone commenting should read the entire contents, this goes back to The Registers comment on the BMJ artical which is about family planning - very firmly the responsibility of Doctors to comment on! Yes - we should upset people if it is necessary - and yes we should do this is we collectively feel we are being asked to undertake work that is morally dubious and the reasoning is not as given to us.
Report Comment
I'm not for a second suggesting anyone should remain silent on the issues surrounding ID cards, but instead debating the extent to which BCS is the right vehicle for certain issues. For those who are fundamentally opposed to ID cards, there are organisations they can join and support like Liberty and NO2ID, who have a strong voice in the debate. BCS has a responsibility to take part in the debate, but as the voice of professional judgement in our sector rather than campaigner. As The Register implied, GPs are not experts on environmental issues by virtue of their professional status. The BCS has areas where our members are collectively an authority (and judged on that authoritative status), and areas where by virtue of our professional status we are no more qualified than the occupants of the Clapham Omnibus. Knowing, recognising and adhering to the boundaries of our expertise and authority is very important... and in the case of ID cards, quite difficult.
Report Comment
I think people assume too much about the implementation of ID cards. Like there has to be an uber-database that will hold every detail about us. Or that the government will get any more information about us. The Swedish have an ID card with no biometric data stored at all, and the government has access to all my data already - Driving Licence, Passport, NHS records, personal finanicals etc. I think the BCS ought to be advising on how a solution can best be implemented that minimizes risk etc. rather than whether or not it's a good idea.
Report Comment
I think that we are all missing the point here, which may explain some of the confusion. In the UK individuals actually have no official 'identity', so to try to produce a 'token' to tie an identity that doesn't exist, to any individual is not going to work. Anyone working in this field knows that when we have to establish 'authority' the first task is to check that the individual and/or business exists within the 'community'. Once that is established we can then move on to try to identify the individual with whom we have contact as that individual and as a representative of that business if necessary. Before identity cards become possibile we must establish an index of all individuals (companies are already registered with companies house) and, I suggest, the only way to do that is to register a number of biometric identifiers such as DNA, finger-prints, appearance and other parameters that will absolutely identify each individual. Remember we can change our names and addresses as we please. I have no problem with that but others may differ. To summarise, you can have no identity card until you have an identity.
Report Comment
I don't have a problem with ID cards as such. I have lived in 2 countries that have them - Japan (biometric fingerprint, signature) and Belgium (signature). ID cards can be useful and certainly more reliable than a gas bill and a drivers licence (both are trivial to forge now). I do have a big problem with master reference databases in a government culture where bulk personal data can be copied by lowly underlings and sent unencrypted by post. The theft of a batch of blank e-passports this week further demonstrates their cavalier attitude to security. And the fact that recently cryptographers have broken the Oystercard MiFare Crypto-1 security wide open with a cunning algebraic attack doesn't bode well for the future of epassports and ID cards against suitably qualified adversaries. http://www.nicolascourtois.com/papers/mifare_rump_ec08.pdf
If there are members of the BCS working on this ID card project then they should stand up and attempt to reassure the rest of us that the suits in charge have some clue what they are doing. The view from the outside is they don't have any kind of coherent plan or clear specification. The BCS has technical expertise and should be ready to challenge vacuous public reassurances by ministers rather than pussyfooting around trying not to upset those in power. I for one would like to see the BCS in the news more often. Regards, Martin Brown
Report Comment
It's genuinely misleading to talk about ID Cards rather than the National Identity Scheme. In fact, by drawing the fire of the "no" lobby, the physical/mental image of a card is probably doing the scheme as a whole a favour... and the loudest critics seem to be playing along nicely, thank you. If you want a passport from 2011/12 then you'll need to get onto the central register and provide your "second biometric" as the next generation of passports will have these (fingerprints I believe but I guess they could be iris scans or whatever). According to the published delivery plan, we'll all have to sign up if we want to travel overseas and we can then decide whether to have a passport or ID card or both. If the ID Cards (bit of the) scheme were to be scrapped - as per present policy of the Conservatives - the central database/register would still be there with all the big brother concerns associated with anyone hacking into that. It would at least be helpful for critics to be clear which bit they are moaning about - the physical card we might have to show, the token which may allow or deny us access to services, or the central register we are likely to get anyway. As you can see, I'm sitting comfortably on the fence here, trying to clarify the terms of the debate rather than pitching in with an "I don't care what it is - I don't like it so take it away" contribution.
Report Comment
I quite agree that the BCS should come out against the ID card database. This would have a greater moral force because many BCS members are likely to profit from the vast amounts of tax revenue likely to be wasted on this enterprise over the years. And to repeat earlier observations: it's not the ID cards that are so objectionable, but the massive state-controlled database that lies behind it. Other countries can issue ID cards without the massive loss of privacy and security that the database requires.
Report Comment
Thanks for all the comments. Those who've mentioned that I failed to differentiate between the ID cards and the NIR, have a good point. They are distinct, and have different issues, but I think most of the time they are regarded as one package by the media...and the public. Perhaps that needs to change, but I think campaigners on all sides have decided that education as to the distinction is simply too hard...
Report Comment
Amongst other things, the possibility for future abuse worries me. When carrying ID cards is mandatory, following any sort of protest, the police will be able to simply run all protestors' ID cards through a reader before they are allowed to depart and arrest all of those who aren't carrying one. People could effectively be kept under house arrest by withdrawing their ID card with the prospect of arrest if they venture outside without an ID card. If they are stolen (my son was mugged recently, his driving licence was amongst the items stolen) then they are capable of being used for id theft. There are countless ways that ID cards and a national database to back them up are a bad idea with enormous scope for abuse by the unscrupulous. I don't see any advantages that could not be achieved by other methods.
Report Comment
There are two different dimensions in which it is proper for the BCS to respond on the identity register issues. First the ethical dimension: if we are a professional society rather that just a special-interest pressure group, we have a responsibility to take a stance on the ethics of major projects within our area of professional expertise; as we have no clear information on what the register is for (because ministers and civil servants keep us very much in the dark, whether by intent or through incompetence) we may well want to say that to build such a dangerous database with no clear description on its purpose and limitations on its use is unethical. We may want to advise our members that the society feels that it would be improper for professional members to support this project in any way. Or we may not - but we should decide what view to take a professional society with a concern for the ethics of tasks undertaken by our members, and not refuse to take a view on the grounds that it's parliament's job to decide not ours, as was suggested previously; that would be to discard any claim to be a profession which recognises ethical behaviour as part of its responsibility. Second the technological dimension. Gene Spafford's stated view on computer security seems to me pretty accurate: ''The only system that is truly secure is one that is switched off and unplugged, locked in a titanium safe, buried in a concrete vault on the bottom of the sea and surrounded by very highly paid armed guards, and even then I wouldn't bet on it.'' We as IT professionals know the state of the art in secure database building; some of us, as security professionals, know the non-technological issues of keeping something secure if hundreds or thousands of people have to have access; most of us are aware of governments appalling record in managing data securely and of the total lack of understanding of the issues displayed by senior civil servants. Many of us are professional engineering managers, and know the problems of letting contracts and planning projects based on vague armwaving and waffle instead of clearly understood objectives and requirements. Surely we should be saying loudly and clearly, on technical professional grounds, "this is absolute nonsense and should not proceed". But perhaps the society is part of the establishement and must not rock the boat - it wouldn't do to upset all those politicians and senior civil servants. Maybe that's where the response came from? It's good that this second article is rather more robust that the first and suggests a readiness to rock the boat if it needs rocking.
Report Comment
Tom - that's a good set of points you make. In my previous posting I didn't mean a blind deference to the will of politicians, more that there comes a point when the BCS has to accept the validity of political judgements on proportionality. As you say, we have a responsibility to comment as professionals on whether something will do what it is intended to do (and not cause inadvertent harm elsewhere). And anyway, just because BCS as an organisation must ultimately accept its limitations in the political process, BCS members can and should be active beyond that. As an aside, it may be worth pointing out that any increased robustness in the post was derived from the official consultation response BCS put in. Those who are keenly interested in the topic should definitely take a look at it. My last point for now is to ask if BCS has the right to demand that members do not work on a legal project which has been part of the government's manifesto for some time. Personally, I think not. Many members believe ID cards are unethical. Many members believe that war is unethical. However, we do not ban members from working in the military, but try and reflect the wider judgement of society.
Report Comment
Should the BCS comment on an issue of civil liberties? Actually, I think the answer to that as it stands is no, but the issue of identity cards is not about civil liberties purely and simply. Identity cards would be the physical parts of a computer system. The questions about what they should have on them ( biometric data, for example ); how the cards should be used - so, would it be reasonable to be arrested for not having a card in your possession; and even what they should be made of are not really BCS issues. Of course, an identity card system would only be of use if it served as a system for tracking and monitoring people, recording where they were and what they were doing. This involves computer systems being used invasively with people, and so this is an issue for all computer professionals. It also involves the government having a lot of computerised data on people, and, given their recent history, this is an issue for everyone to be concerned about - including the BCS. So it is right to comment on this, from the perspective of computer professionals - within our speciality. It is right to comment from the perspective of project management. It is right to raise concerns when the plans seem to be flawed and dangerous. We would be wrong to not comment.
Report Comment
Steve - I agree 100%
Report Comment
I can't see a better place to post about the latest monumental Home office security breach so here goes. It has huge implications for the ID card database security (or rather lack of it). How can anyone accept that the government is safe with our personal data when they routinely send out unecrypted thumb drives with massive amounts of sensitive personal data this time of all criminals. The contractor managed to lose the tiny drive or we would never have heard about it. I am sorry, but heads must roll this time! And we should be campaigning for that outcome. Until these massive security failures are punished the suits will not pay attention. And drudges will be free to grab and go with data willy nilly. Data walking with 32GB thumbnail drives readily available consumer items is inevitable unless the OS is configured never to allow removable media to dock with a PC. Or at the very least to require hardware encryption and a secure password. I would really like to see the BCS beat up the government hard on this one. Ministers will repeat the platitude that they have "learned" lessons when in reality they have swept it under the carpet and prayed yet again. Full marks to Keith Vaz MP for being on the today programme this morning berating this lastest and most monumental security breach. Where was the BCS spokesman? I had a look at our latest security news hoping for a more recent thread to attach these comments to only to find that "latest" stopped dead on 7th Feb 2007. If the BCS website cannot manage to keep up to date on security issues what hope is there? http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=nav.8306 This is a sidebar link from content dated May 2008. I am not impressed with government IT security or the way the BCS maintains its website. Security matters; it is not some optional add-on for major databases. The BCS supine response to repeated government security lapses does us no credit whatsoever. Get a grip and sort it out for heavens sake!
Report Comment
Hi Martin, thanks for that. Firstly, ouch, that news feed page was obsolete in Feb last year and a search determines that it wasn't shut down fully - now done - thanks for pointing it out. We have a wide range of material on government data handling, and I have written about it on this blog ad nauseum. Check out www.bcs.org/security for the main landing page. Secondly, we will do everything we can to put up spokespeople whenever we can, but a pre-requisite to appearing on the Today Programme is being asked. However, there are some fairly obvious reasons why they pick Keith Vaz and not us. Finally, what would you have us do to beat up government, and to what end? If the desired outcome is simply making us feel better, then that isn't very professional. If the desired outcome is positive change, then beating people up is perhaps not terribly effective. They clearly know that this is a major screw-up!
Report Comment
Post a comment