ID Cards: Home Office makes strong rebuttal of LSE report :: PublicTechnology.net :: e-Government & public sector IT news + job vacancies:

The Home Office has published a strong rebuttal of The London School of Economics’ report on ID Cards.

This is text of the summary of the Home office statement. To read the report see the link at the foot of this page:

The Home Office says:

1. The LSE’s costing of the Government’s proposals includes a number of inaccurate assumptions that has inflated their cost estimates.

2. The LSE alternative scheme is insecure and would facilitate the creation of multiple and false identities. It would fail to meet the growing security requirements for reliable identity documentation.

3. The LSE scheme puts the safety of personal information at risk, exposing it to less secure environments and many more less well-trained members of staff.

4. The LSE scheme would not gain public trust. It is likely to be expensive, yet would be less user-friendly and offer few benefits to society due to its security weaknesses.

5. The LSE scheme is not yet costed, is likely to be expensive and is incorrect in its few assertions regarding possible savings it would achieve. 6. The LSE scheme is contradictory and does not meet the criteria it sets itself. It identifies the problems with identity theft and fraud today, yet proposes a scheme that actually facilitates it.

7. The LSE scheme has a high risk of failure. The Home Office proposal builds on existing infrastructure and processes at the UK Passport Service and facilitates a planned and gradual rollout. The LSE scheme suggests the need for a completely new system with no clear lines of control or accountability and would not have the same ability to manage the rollout effectively.

8. The LSE scheme is based on much less consultation with key user organisations and the public than the Identity Card Programme and it frequently misrepresents the nature of the Identity Cards Scheme proposed by the Home Office. Key examples include:
a). it claims that the Scheme allows “a full flow of information across sectors and other boundaries”. This is incorrect - the verification and provision of information is strictly regulated in the Identity Cards Bill;
b). it is claimed that the Government has not consulted widely in the development of the proposals and implied that, as a result, that they are not reliable. This is untrue – the Government has consulted with over 300 organisations and acknowledged leading universities in the field of biometrics, such as San Jose University in the US. This is of a far greater depth than the consultation panels involved in the LSE report;
c). it is claimed that we plan to vet people’s “life history and activities” in the enrolment process. This is incorrect - we are simply confirming the true existence of an identity before issuing an ID card;
d). it suggests the Government’s scheme infringes the European Convention on Human Rights and the Data Protection Act. This is incorrect and the LSE report fails to acknowledge the Government’s position e.g. as set out in the Home Secretary’s memorandum to the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Related links to this article:
Home Office
The Home Office response to the LSE report is at this link

For all of our coverage on ID Cards: see this link

Related articles:
ID Cards: LSE says it's high risk & high cost, up to 19.2 billion - Monday, June 27, 2005

Enter the e-Government National Awards 2005 online, today
Nominations are now open in 11 categories in the e-Government National Awards 2005, and entry is free. The Awards recognise and praise the best strategies, achievements, teams and individuals in UK e-Government. It's simple to enter your e-Government initiative or team online. The Awards will be presented at a prestigious dinner at the Savoy in London.

The Awards are supported by the Cabinet Office e-Government Unit, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and Socitm. Platinum sponsor is KPMG, and also sponsoring is Jobsgopublic.