* The London School of Economics' alternative to U.K. govt.'s ID card
The U.K.’s Sunday Telegraph broke a story a couple of weeks ago about an alternative identity scheme (alternative to the U.K.’s government scheme) reportedly being pushed by the prestigious London School of Economics.
The initial proposal in 2003 by the U.K. government was for an approximately $73 per person charge for compulsory identity cards (see “Plans for £40 ID cards”, https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3048386.stm) but according to the Telegraph story that’s now risen to £300 per person (roughly $550)! The LSE proposal is supposed to bring that down to a measly £30 (or $55) each.
While that would be important to the economists, the real news for identity specialists is that, according to the Telegraph, “The plan, drawn up by the London School of Economics after six months of research, would also limit the Government’s access to information on the card to a few basic details,” rather than the huge amount of data the original bureaucratic folks at the Home Office wanted to collect.
The LSE proposal only requires the holder’s name, date of birth and photograph, plus an encrypted card number and a unique “national identification number”. Other data could be added, at the user’s discretion and released only with the user’s approval.
In contrast, under the government plan U.K. citizens would have to disclose bank accounts, proof of residency and address, birth certificate, passport number, NHS [National Health Service] number, National Insurance number and a credit reference number. The government claims it would need this data in order to validate the user’s identity and prevent fraud.
The LSE scheme requires much less data because it also requires the endorsement of three referees – a doctor, lawyer, teacher or police officer for example – who have known the applicant for a long time.
What I like about that is that it moves the definition of “trust” from the risk assessment used in the government plan to real trust, trust among humans, in the LSE plan. Technology is very good for many things, but judgment isn’t one of them.
There’s a lot more to the LSE program and I do urge you to read the article in the Telegraph (at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=AOGJFI4AQOMDPQFIQMGCM5OAVCBQUJVC?xml=/news/2005/06/05/nid05.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=75657). Sadly, the Telegraph does require registration, but those of us who dislike that have learned that BugMeNot (http://www.bugmenot.com) is our friend.
