By Andy McCue, 21 March 2005 16:40
NEWS The UK government's controversial plans to introduce a national biometric ID card are deeply flawed, technically unsafe and likely to run way over budget, according to a new report.
More worryingly the Identity Project research by academics at the London School of Economics (LSE) found serious concerns about the feasibility of the ID card scheme from the very IT suppliers who would be likely to bid for work on it.
The ID card bill is due for its second reading in the House of Lords this week after being approved by MPs last month but the government faces a race against time to get it passed into law before the likely May general election and some MPs believe it will have to be dropped.
A wide variety of stakeholders across government and the private sector were interviewed for the LSE report, which pulls no punches in criticising the rushed and badly-thought-through nature of the proposals contained in the ID card bill.
"There was an overwhelming view expressed by stakeholders involved in this report that the proposals are too complex, technically unsafe, overly prescriptive and lack a foundation of public trust and confidence," the report said.
The LSE also warns that far from aiding the fight against terrorism the current ID card plans actually increase the UK's risk and exposure.
"The proposed system unnecessarily introduces, at a national level, a new tier of technological and organisational infrastructure that will carry associated risks of failure. A fully integrated national system of this complexity and importance will be technologically precarious and could itself become a target for attacks by terrorists or others," it said.
Almost 50 "points of concern" are raised in the report from legal and privacy issues to the cost and the implications of how people will use the cards.
But the one that should set alarm bells ringing is the unease among the IT supplier community about the scheme, despite the fact they would benefit from the huge contracts that are likely to be awarded around it.
Professor Patrick Dunleavy, from the LSE's government department, told silicon.com: "It is troubling contractors and suppliers. There is a chorus of dissent and disquiet about the scheme. We have received input from suppliers that the cost would be considerable and if the process produces a very costly and ultimately failed or only partially successful project this is highly damaging for the firms involved."
The LSE says it is not against the idea of national ID cards, just that the current plans are flawed. The report's authors argue the government should scrap the current bill and start again from scratch to develop an ID card that is "a real benefit to the citizen rather than being a costly imposition".
The full report can be read at the LSE website.
Comments
There are 12 comments. Join the discussion
1. Ken Hall
What do you do when the tracking database goes down and loses your data? Will you legally cease to exist?
2. Mark SPLINTER
Do you believe the LSE or Tony?
3. Lee Mayhew
An old adage - "Marry in haste, repent at leisure".
If ID cards are rushed through with all the concerns currently registered then I think it's fair to say that the general public will be "repenting" through increased cost and lesser freedoms for years to come.
4. David Bullock
Interesting how this subject brings out the best of British ie why it wont work. Very few articles go on to say what needs to be done to make it work.
We all carry a number of "ID cards" all more flawed than any new scheme & yet people continue to apply for more.
ROW & particularly the rest of Europe must smile at these discussions in quaint old Britain.
5. Staunch supportor of Tony Blair is a muppet campaign
TO: Mark Splinter,
If that is a genunine question and not a sarcastic one, then answer would be the LSE. Tony has proved again and again he hasn't got a clue what's going on. Although he has slightly more clue than G.W.Bush, which is something to be thankful for I suppose.
6. MikeW
Mr Bullock, you should consider Govt's track record on IT project specification & implementation before you suggest that we're just being nay-sayers.
Read the LSE report too.
7. Chris Allonby
If ID cards ever come to fruition you should be aware that each and every adult in Britain will be required to take a day off work, report to a government office, fill in a vast and intrusive form, have their fingerprints taken like a common criminal and cough up a hundred good 'uns for the privilege.
('soundbite' from No2ID campaign group).
How will ID cards benefit you - and is it worth the money?
8. anonymous
So when this Bill gets to the Lords Bliar will say "the experts have advised that this project is fraught with difficulties and we've decided to can it for the time being?"
9. anonymous
Reply to Staunch supportor of Tony Blair is a muppet campaign.
That's a bit harsh on the Muppets!
Miss Piggy has an enduring allure, and I don't think the Muppets ever insulted my intelligence, or squandered hundreds of millions of pounds of tax payers hard earned on projects that failed to deliver.
I don't think the Muppets ever had any hidden agenda, such as trying to turn Britain into East Germany Lite.
10. Guy Herbert
David Bullock's comment ignores that all the flawed systems we are currently all *voluntarily* part of are independent and incompatible, and necessarily offer only a partial key to who we are. That's not a disadvantage.
It means our data-identities have built in firewalls and redundancies. If one system goes down or is compromised we can continue with our lives as before.
It also means that no-one assumes that the data-identity is the source of our own; that we and the number are the same thing. We can change. We can have different profiles under different circumstances, just as our natural personalities are different at home or at work, or among different sets of friends. It is a profound change to our social lives, as well as a security risk, to adopt an identity (in the mathematical sense) between person and serial number that creates a single partition on all our relationship sets.
We need a variety of authentication systems that are resilient and in the control of users, not top-down management of the entirety of society. I doubt that even Mr Bullock or the Home Office civil servants really want to live their entire lives in the same set of pigeonholes fixed by the bureaucracy--even if they think they do.
Guy Herbert
General Secretary, NO2ID
11. Guy Herbert
David Bullock's comment ignores that all the flawed systems we are currently all *voluntarily* part of are independent and incompatible, and necessarily offer only a partial key to who we are. That's not a disadvantage.
It means our data-identities have built in firewalls and redundancies. If one system goes down or is compromised we can continue with our lives as before.
It also means that no-one assumes that the data-identity is the source of our own; that we and the number are the same thing. We can change. We can have different profiles under different circumstances, just as our natural personalities are different at home or at work, or among different sets of friends. It is a profound change to our social lives, as well as a security risk, to adopt an identity (in the mathematical sense) between person and serial number that creates a single partition on all our relationship sets.
We need a variety of authentication systems that are resilient and in the control of users, not top-down management of the entirety of society. I doubt that even Mr Bullock or the Home Office civil servants really want to live their entire lives in the same set of pigeonholes fixed by the bureaucracy--even if they think they do.
Guy Herbert
General Secretary, NO2ID
12. MikeW
Hey,are you Guy Herberts the same guy ?
;-)