Opinion: ID cards - a fiasco waiting to happen

Thousands could fail the biometric test, for starters...

By Brian White, 16 January 2006 15:15

COMMENT

A national ID card may not be bad in theory, says Brian White but there are a number of technological kinks that need to be worked out first for it to succeed.

Most of us are familiar with the 80:20 rule, whereby 80 per cent of the work in any project can be done in the first 20 per cent of the time available.

It's the last 20 per cent which causes all the problems. And in the public sector you only need one issue to undermine the credibility of the whole scheme.

The government's ID card scheme is a classic example of the problems that need to be addressed when a universal service is required. Most private sector projects can tailor the system to key objectives and groups but when every citizen needs to be identified you start to get a number of intractable issues.

After all, how can you identify the terrorist if you have a system which can only identify 95 per cent of the population?

We know that biometric testing is not an exact science and there are a number of people who come up as false positives. Even the best type - DNA testing - can only go as far as saying the chances of this individual not being the right person are statistically remote. It cannot say with 100 per cent certainty that it is the same person.

So people will fail a biometric test. The iris changes as we get older, and there is something like one in 70,000 people whose iris cannot be machine read. During testing there was even a whole ethnic group whose iris was not readable.

It is inevitable that some cards will fail the test so the question is how are the authorities going to deal with these people? Will they be treated like criminals or potential suspects?

The government is faced with a real dilemma in how they will manage this process.

If the government sorts out all the problems and achieves - say - a 99.7 per cent success, then we are still left with 135,000 people failing the test and having to continually prove that they are who they say they are.

And if the pessimists are right then that figure will rise dramatically.

Then there is the question of who will do the testing and where. Will we have roadside ID card checks? Will the private sector have access to the technology? At what level will these testers be in their organisation? And what analysis has been done into how the use of this technology will affect the way organisations operate?

One US company which introduced iris recognition technology correctly estimated the time it would take a reader to scan the person - but failed to realise that each person would waste several more seconds preparing themselves for the reader by straightening their tie, combing their hair and generally smartening themselves up.

The system was quickly withdrawn when they simply could not get enough people through the turnstiles to be profitable.

Over-reliance on technological solutions or a belief in their infallibility will be the undoing of the ID card.

There is no doubt there are real benefits to the introduction of an ID card - which I support - but until the government deals with the social aspects of the introduction of the cards we will simply be creating another IT project which went wrong.

As always, we seem to be blinded by the technology and we fail to appreciate how people will react to its introduction. That is where the government's tax credits system came unstuck and we don't seem to have learnt any lessons.

Brian White is a business adviser and former MP for Milton Keynes North East. When an MP, he was treasurer of the Parliamentary ICT Committee and an officer of the All Party Internet Group.

Comments

There are 26 comments. Join the discussion

  1. 1. Richard Sarson

    I am pro-ID cards in principle, but this is the best objection to them that I have seen on silicon.com: rational, technical, practical, not emotional (pity about the headline, though).

    I wish more of the debate was on this level.

  2. 2. anonymous

    No mention of the many thousands who would rather go to jail than have an ID card.

    The scheme hasn't a hope in hell.

  3. 3. Karen Challinor

    In response to Mr Sarson I would say this

    I and many others have been making statements regarding the ID card scheme, of a similar nature to the article since they were first mooted.

    We have been ignored, derided, suffered personal abuse, told that we were wrong but offered no proof, told we were stupid and ignorant despite the fact that we are among the few who have actually read the bill, told that we were lying and inciting panic, told not to be such drama queens, offered comparisons with wartime ID cards which are inapplicable, told other countries have the same schemes when they have not and so on

    No one has actually responded with a valid argumement and most have descended into personal abuse

    It is difficult in the face of such personal attacks to remain unemotional and objective

  4. 4. anonymous

    What benefits?
    Loss of privacy, freedom & the gargantuan cost outweigh possible benefits.

  5. 5. Nick Moulsdale

    Lets not beat about the bush. What this government would really like is an active RFID based chip implanted in every one of us at birth or entry into the country. It could glow gently red (for New Labour) if it was working.
    Then this paranoid government would know where everyone of us was all the time. And what an IT Project _that_ would be.

    And the terrorists would just wear red christmas tree lights to fool our infallible systems. ;~)

  6. 6. Steve Johnson

    Before we consider the costs lets consider the benefits.

    What is the point in a card?

    I can see the value of having biometric data in a database so that it can check who I am, online in real time. This would help stop terrorists.

    What does the card bring to the party? They say "It stores my biometric data" - why bother as I am carrying that anyway. Forging body parts is much harder than forging any kind of card.

    OK, biometric data gradually changes, so gradually update the database over time, say 1% change per year should do it.

  7. 7. stinky

    In reply to Karen Challinors remarks
    about making statements and being ignored and about being the few who had read the bill etc well some of us though not company directors but maybe on the dole are perfectly able to read through bills acts whatever , and when relevant very often do, and among the things we do we make predictions about the out come of gov
    schemes like the ID register say,
    There are people out here who know
    the score and have for to long been lucky if they even get as much as an autorespond from an office bot.

  8. 8. Adam Finch

    In response to Steve Johnson, so you can see the value of having biometric data in a database, and as you claim, it will stop terrorists but will it really?

    All this technology does NOTHING to stop the terrorists. Lets look at 7/7 for example, the government spent a massive amount of money (I don't remember the figures) on the introduction of CCTV on ALL trains, tubes and buses and this was a big thing when they had finished doing the work. Now after the 7/7 attacks, where is all the footage of the bombers and what really happened in those attacks? Conveniently "The CCTV was not working that day". So in essense the CCTV was a massive security failure.

    So all this technology amounts to nothing, terrorists will always be able to strike regardless of technology. The sooner people like you actually wake up, the better. The terrorists are run by the government and will always strike as it enforces the British government's agenda to move towards a totalitarian police state where every move you make is monitored, tracked and traced.

    If you really want it then you have it - but I will have nothing to do with ID cards, biometrics or any other kind of surveillance. Enjoy having a microchip inserted into your body wont you, because then you will be completely enslaved and part of the system.

    I wish you the best of luck as you are going to need it.

  9. 9. Karen Challinor

    Well it looks like the government are going to ignore the will of the people and the requests from the house of lords and do it anyway, according to this story http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4619218.stm

    And I agree with stinky it doesn't matter who you are getting an answer to legitimate questions is damn near impossible on this issue

    I still find it difficult to believe that a government elected by approximately 20% of the population is trying to steamroller through a bill of such magnitude and far reaching impact on civil liberties without any debate and ignoring any voices of dissent

  10. 10. Jerry K

    You can't take blood from a haemophiliac; you can't take a hair from someone od chemotherapy; you can't take iris images from the blind (often); you can't take dental impressions from someone who has just been to the dentist or in a fight; you can't take fingerprints from a burns victim, for some time; do we really want to spit into a bucket? How about RFID tagging or barcodes on the forearm? Don't get me wrong, I'm broadly in favour of Id cards or similar but it must be foolproof and organised-crime-proof. Face it, organised crime has more clout than government, and if it can be cracked or abused, they will do it. Look at the tax credit fiasco.

  11. 11. Steve Johnson

    Calm down Mr Finch. I said a database would HELP stop the terrorists. I didn't say I approved of it.

    Having once spent best part of a week in the palace of Westminster before the security staff asked me who I was and threw me out. I think it reasonable that such a system be implemented there.

    My question is, if we accept for a moment that there may be value in being able to recognise people, what good is a card?

    You carry your own biometric data that cannot easily be forged. The card adds what exactly? This is a serious question.

  12. 12. anonymous

    Hooray for comment - at last! This is a hare-brained, impractical, socially divisive and privacy-invasive project which has - for too long - been given tacit approval by the industry.

    The physics, biometrics, data management and target user profiles are such that this project inevitably has built-in the seeds of its own failure. And anyone applying rigorous PRINCE techniques would find the 'specification creep' reaching record levels!

    Could it be that our industry is part-financed by such hugely expensive, failed IT projects and no-one has the the courage to tell their biggest client?

  13. 13. Jim Davies

    Given that Charles Clarke admitted that it wouldn't have prevented 7/7 and that it costs (even under HMG's own estimates) more than the benefit fraud it might prevent, is there a published case for what the scheme is supposed to be for?

    I'm a senior software engineer in the Home Office (speaking entirely unofficially of course). And *I* don't know what it's for.

    I do know that it'll be a staggeringly expensive security liability, as currently proposed.

  14. 14. Brian Curnow

    Your Index Fingerprint and your DNA are all that's really required to identify you as an individual. The chances of both being false positives are extremly remote.

    If they were encoded on a chip and put on your Driving Licence and your Passport that would have proof positive of who you are.

    As Mr White says Iris Recognition isn't really reliable enough and Facial Recognition isn't satisfactory enough yet either, because people's faces are constantly changing.

    Using a Driver's Licence to identify people would have the advantage that we all accept that learning to drive is essential for road safety, so nobody objects to having to carry a Licence. They do already and we also all possess a continually renewed free Index Fingerprint throughout our lives.

    So I say to the Government - use what we already have to build a system that we can all accept.

    I have visions of little old ladies waving their ID Cards about at the Post Office before they would be allowed to get their Pensions - and what happens if unfortunately their eyes don't scan properly - do we call the Police?!

    The best IT systems are always the simplest. Let's have ID checks by all means, but let's do it in a far simpler and more user friendly way.

  15. 15. alastair warren

    If the Govt. cannot even administer and use 2 databases to keep sex offenders and those sexually attracted to minors out of schools what chance have they got of being able to manage this?

    I reckon about the same as me winning the jackpot on the Euromillions Lottery.

    So when this project goes wrong they'll look at what has happened over the last 50 years or something, as if the answer and the fix will be there?

    For the last Five years the DVLA have made £9M a year selling names and addresses to cowboy clampers and big business (if you check that booklet the DVLA sent out with the new style registration documents, it's covered by a bullet point somewhere in the middle). This database which they'll never be able to keep secure will be used by, and for the benefit of big business.

    How much ID fraud is due to the indiscriminate junk mailings offering preapproved Credit Cards?

    We know, and they know that our money could be much better spent than squandered on this pipe dream.

    Hurrah for the Lords for having the balls to tell the Govt. that they're making it up as they go along!

    What exactly are 'the opposition' doing to justify their salaries and well secured, worth something pensions?

  16. 16. Keith Miller

    The whinging classes have taken over, there are always 135,000 of them

  17. 17. anonymous

    How about another simple example of why it will fail. I and many others don't want it! Period. Nothing to do with anything else except its my life and my choice.

  18. 18. Chris

    Another thought....How does an ID card prevent someone waking up one morning and deciding they have had enough of life and big brother state imposed rules and join a terrorist group.

  19. 19. Ted Wynne

    A major impetus for the ID Card programme is UK Government desire to support local biometric development with taxpayer's money. This desire drives the Government to overlook or ignore certain facts which doom the project to failure:

    1. Government ability to handle complex technological projects is very limited. Massive failures are noted in Tax /Benefits/Passports departments every month.
    2. Biometrics are not 100% accurate and are substantially unreliable in mass or speedy testing situations.
    3. The ID card databases will be vulnerable to attack and manipulation rendering the whole system useless.
    4. The project has great potential for very high costs per card and in running costs.
    4A. Data transmission in operation presents another level of INSECURITY which will be open to attack or manipulation.
    5. ID cards will do very little to deter or identify terrorists.
    6. Public support is very limited and should be at about 85-90% approval for the project to be implemented and succeed.
    Regards,
    Ted Wynne

  20. 20. Karen Challinor

    I refer Mr Miller of the Hague to my earlier comments regarding personal abuse of those who oppose the bill and lack of argument from those who do

  21. 21. Ian Lynch

    Why so many billions on this stupid ID card scheme when, supposedly, we should all be uniquely identified to the tax and health systems by out National Insurance number. One previous minister was cock-a-hoop that he could exclude this solution in preference to their new pet scheme as the NI database had some one million bad records. Talk about the blind leading the blind (no offence intended to the gentleman at the time). Fix the bloody NI database you fool it will cost a lot less!

    Far from forcing everyone to put everything on one card (Mmm, how about puting all my network services on one server?), I am not everse to producing ten different proofs of my identity every few years or so to veryify my entry in the NI database.

  22. 22. Nick Cole

    The solution as with all these systems is to identify the 20% that will cause problems and design the system around that. It will automatically take care of the remaining 80%.

    Another lesson that the public sector never learns.

    The sceptics and cynics understand this logic which is why they voice concerns. Unfortunately the politicians focus on the quick fix and refuse to listen to the doubters thereby guaranteeing failure. Taking a holistic view is fine as long as the details are taken account of, which is where they go wrong.

  23. 23. alastair warren

    This was raised on BBC Radio 4's 'Any Questions?' on Friday night (20 Jan).

    Baroness Shirley Williams spoke sensibly on the issue, but as ever Lord Falconer refused to see sense, citing that the US will soon require us to have Biometric Passports. I'm not American, I don't live in the US and I may never have need to visit the place ever again. Is that a good enough reason to pour Billions of pounds of our money into another scheme that will never work?

    Savings and efficiencies were mentioned. If New Labour are so convinced about the savings and efficiencies this system will deliver why don't they borrow the money, pay for it in its entirety and payback the loan and interest from the savings and efficiencies this scheme will deliver?

  24. 24. Mike

    1. DEFINE the need
    2. QUANTIFY the benefits
    3. QUANTIFY the costs
    4. QUANTIFY the risks....
    5. EVALUATE alternative solutions

    The Government hasn't even done the elementary first steps in considering this project. IT WILL FAIL !!!

    Anyway who elected this bunch of "Merchant Bankers"?

  25. 25. tommo

    In response to Jerry K who said "Don't get me wrong, I'm broadly in favour of Id cards or similar but it must be foolproof and organised-crime-proof. Face it, organised crime has more clout than government, and if it can be cracked or abused, they will do it."

    One thing must be said in reply: The governments ARE organised crime, don't you see. Thats how they work.
    PROBLEM, REACTION, SOLUTION! a tried and tested method that has helped corrupt administrations for many years, to delude and punish their citizens.
    Create a problem, to cause a public reaction (usually fear) and then step in to proide the solution (in this case ID cards). When you look at the problem from the outside in, it all becomes clear.

    Basically they should NOT be trusted.

  26. 26. anonymous

    Dear Brian,
    Thanks for your opinions.However,biometric technology has worked in some countries and it is a success!.Can you substantiate your argument please.

    Regards,

    Godfrey.

Post your comment

In order to post a comment you need to be registered and logged in.

Log in or create your silicon.com account below

Will not be displayed with your comment

By signing up for this service, you indicate that you agree to our Terms and Conditions and have read and understood our Privacy Policy.

Questions about membership? Find the answers in the Membership FAQ