I love my readers. Yes, that’s you I’m talking about. Time and time again you (individually or in groups) come up with just the information I need. Of course it is a two-edged sword — sometimes you find data that seemingly contradicts what I’ve said. But most of the time you know the whereabouts of the documents that can help prove a point or answer a question.
Last week’s story (“An English NSTIC (NSTUK?)“) about a British initiative similar to the U.S.’s National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace ended with a plea: “There are most likely similar programs in other countries which (because of language issues) I haven’t seen. But if you know, let me know, then I can let everyone know.”
Sure enough, reader Tom Smedinghoff (he’s chairman of the American Bar Association Identity Management Legal Task Force) knew just the right document and pointed me to it.
Last year the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which provides a forum in which governments can work together to share experiences and seek solutions to common problems, surveyed its membership about national strategies and policies for digital identity management. The results were published and make excellent reading (download the report here).
IN THE NEWS: OECD declaration on Internet policy angers EFF
Eighteen member countries (Australia, Austria, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the United States) responded and, as the report noted: “All of them have or plan to develop a national strategy for Identity Management (IdM) or a set of policies which, taken together, represent such a strategy.”
The report also summarizes the vision and strategy for the initiatives:
“Vision: the main objectives for national IdM strategies are to realise e-government, to foster innovation in public and private e-services and strengthen cybersecurity.”
“Strategy: the primary focus of national IdM strategies is the public administration with expected spillovers in the private sector.”
Not every country endorses both of these, but the majority do.
There are tables grouping the countries on various topics and methodologies plus a long section giving details of each country’s plans and implementations. I found it fascinating and informative and I’ll be following the progress of these endeavors but I was struck by one conclusion of the authors: “One observation is that no strategy expresses the need for a single or global interoperable identity system. Each country develops its own strategy and implementation policies, applying international standards.” And that is a sad state of affairs.
I’ll reiterate what I said last week: If there’s enough international interest (and it is to the interest of these 18 countries, I’d think) perhaps a joint effort — so that the identity wheel doesn’t need to be reinvented — can be undertaken. Perhaps OECD could lead, or the IMF or another international organization which understands the security needed for financial transactions as well as the privacy needed by ordinary citizens.
