Slashdot Mirror
UK 'Virtual ID Card' Scheme Set For Launch
First time accepted submitter evrybodygonsurfin writes "The UK Government will announce details this month of a controversial national identity scheme which will allow people to use their mobile phones and social media profiles as official identification documents for accessing public services. People wishing to apply for services ranging from tax credits to fishing licences and passports will be asked to choose from a list of familiar online log-ins, including those they already use on social media sites, banks, and large retailers such as supermarkets, to prove their identity." I can't wait until carrying a telephone is mandatory. In the U.S. at least, how else will the government send you important messages?
They will not "be asked."
It is optional to be stupid enough to log in with an ID that's related to a commercial service such as Facebook.
I can't wait until carrying a telephone is mandatory.
How would people with low income, who until now have relied on payphones for the occasional call away from home, meet such an unfunded mandate?
Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't this make identity theft easier in some cases?
i can't wait until facebook is attached to birth certificates.
"Boy, this Anon guy sure claims a lot of unemployment."
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
So am I. What are we having?
Give me a "ham on five, hold the mayo..."
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Too bad they can't use dental records.
Right? As long as everyone uses their real name on Facebook, this kind of system totally makes sense. As for me, I think I'll go to England, call myself Patrick Stuart, and apply for a passport. Hep hep, righto and such.
This signature intentionally left blank.
Unfortunately, random images from your cell phone are already OK as "proof of residency" in Wisconsin. (See public radio article:
http://news.wpr.org/post/cell-phones-can-prove-residency-polls )
When the scheme spreads to copycat countries. From TFA:
"The Government hopes the identity system will form the basis of a universally-recognised online authentication process for commercial transactions on the Internet, boosting the economy and strengthening Britain's position as a leader in e-commerce."
Here's one thing I hope the UK doesn't export like deep-fried Mars bars.
All Citizens will be able to receive Government Messages through built in channels in the TV's and through computer monitors. In addition, you will be able to pick up your phone address the government by saying "Hello Government" and a Government Watcher will answer back using your phone's microphone and camera. In case of an emergency, all you have to do is yell "help government" or "911 government" and someone will be available to help. After all, your government is Watching out for your safety and benefit. In addition, to make the interface with the Government less error prone, the Government is build a special vocabulary that the phones, computers and TV's will understand. It will be taught in schools, community colleges and online. Just search for "newspeak".
How many of you believe that the government will keep no records? I think they will keep records or have access to them, in order to fulfill the function.
Can you say Target for keyloggers, viruses, etc. Imagine what you could do with that information. Even if the information is sent via a third party site like social networks or whatever the universe of possible login information is limited.
as well. And not necessarily 2008 type smartphones.
Could it be that they became homeless after losing job and house to the outrageous upkeep required by telcos these days?
Sometimes I enjoy thinking of what I would do if I were at the head of a country to improve society, and providing a service that allows a person to prove their identity to another party over the Internet is one of those.
In real life, you can choose to show your ID card to someone to prove who you are, but there is no way to do something like this over the Internet, which might be useful to prove your age or nationality and access certain services.
Likewise, you could use a mechanism to prove you are who you claim to be when you send a message to someone (digital signing). Solutions exist, but you always need to rely on a reference authority; it being the state is the most official authority there is.
It seems however that in this case the execution is extremely poor, the possibilities limited, and security a problem. In particular, there is no need to put trust in private parties, it should be handled by the state. OpenID and similar technologies can already do the right thing without problems.
This is just taken us one more step closer and shows more proof.
Labours launched some random identity card program, now coalition government is launching a virtual ID card program. I don't know which is worse.
Duh! Just have the government issue everybody a phone. Free of course, except for the rich. Everybody will be required to have one. Congress can subsidize Verizon or Cricket or whoever. Think of the jobs it will create! And the government can demand cheaper prices because they buy in bulk.
That's Pip , Pip old chap unless you really did mean Hep, hep because you own a sheep dog.
As for me, I think I'll go to England, call myself Patrick Stuart, and apply for a passport. Hep hep, righto and such.
Patrick is a predominantly Irish name, and Stuart is predominantly Scottish. And we stopped saying "Hep Hep, righto" and such immediately after American scriptwriters of WWII films moved onto other genres.
Am I understanding this correctly--that the UK wants folks to log into sites in real-time to validate their identity whilst they watch? If so, is it not obvious that they would be gleaning login information, and the information from the site you're visiting as well? What about people who use the same password for multiple sites?
In light of this proposal, stealing another person's phone brings a whole new variation to the concept of "identity theft".
A street address identifies a household and by extension its head, not necessarily an individual person. I don't know about the UK, but in the US it's common for two parents and three kids to live under one mailing address, where only some members of the household have their own mobile phone numbers.
pulled an iPhone out of his pocket
He wasn't homeless, that was RMS
Whatever RMS that might have been, it wasn't Richard M. Stallman. He wouldn't be caught dead carrying a defective-by-design iToy. See 5 reasons why iPhone poops.
I *am* Corbin Dallas.
In fact as a former regional co-ordinator of NO2ID, I can point out that NO2ID were consulted and have approved this scheme.
We accept that there is a demand by the public to be able to easily authenticate/identify themselves for the purposes of govt services, many of which can be delivered online. Success of this scheme will deny Big Brother govts the opportunity to masquerade a future surveillance scheme as a benefit to the public.
Secondly, the scheme complies with the Nine Principles of Data Privacy: http://www.amberhawk.com/uploads/LSE_surv_2.pdf
As Britain was the first Western country to be subject to a Big Brother attempt, we have a lot of expertise to share. This historical document will hopefully form the basis of future constitutional protection around the world.
Notably, all data is held by a trusted third party. No govt can access that data without your third party disclosing it.
Compare this with forced interviews, forced fingerprinting, forced iris scanning, forced enrollment on a govt database (National Identity Register) designed to bring together your medical records, ANPR records, bank/phone/internet records, DNA and police records together into one automatic personal dossier on every person in the country. This was Labour's totalitarian scheme.
Whilst the Coalition's Communications Bill is more of the same, this third-party identification/authentication scheme is to be lauded and copied around the world.
"In particular, there is no need to put trust in private parties, it should be handled by the state."
Trusting the state is entirely the problem this proposal is avoiding.
Whichever third party I choose will have no other data on me, a track record for data protection and ethical behaviour, no ability to rewrite the law, no ability to coerce the media, no police, no secret police, no army etc etc.
You should read this historical document the scheme is based upon:
http://www.amberhawk.com/uploads/LSE_surv_2.pdf
Disclaimer: I work for one of the third party companies
It's not that it will let you use social media accounts AS an identification document.
Rather, you will be able to link a social media account TO an account at one of the third party providers AFTER your identity has been verified using a regular document (and depending on the requested security level, a face-to-face check).
In regards to your privacy, I can perhaps make you all feel a bit better; the structure of the systems being developed is such that after your account is completed, all your personal data is locked away and encrypted to such an extend that even with root access to the box it's running WE can't even see your details. They can only be unlocked using the customer's signing (which is at minimum two-factor).
Blast!
This signature intentionally left blank.