The Upcoming DTI Event
As this event is getting closer to hand, I am reposting William’s discussion of it from last month.
Update: You can now register online by clicking here, or here or by emailing the rather miraculous Susan Pickrell at susan.pickrell@kable.co.uk.
What are the essential unanswered questions for the UK about ID infrastructure, government’s role and its effect on business and consumers? What are the opportunities for unlocking value, wealth creation, efficiency and what are the threats to privacy and public trust?
The DTI is planning a get-together to start the process of looking at this on 9 July. There are important questions still out there, and DTI has allocated £10m for research projects to look into them to get answers starting from the autumn.
This isn’t a re-run of the ID card policy debate. We live in a democracy, Parliament has spoken, and those who want Parliament to speak again and say something different next time have to go through those channels. That’s Home Office/IPS’s patch anyway, and they are co-sponsors of the get-together. So the approach is, taking the work of IPS as a given in this landscape, what are the great known unknowns, including areas like privacy and consent.
Let’s go into the ID-enabled future with our eyes open. DTI will particularly welcome attendance at this event from people interested in undertaking the research work.
If you’re interested in coming email your details to editor [at] blindside .org.uk for now; online registration will be available soon.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
“This isn’t a re-run of the ID card policy debate. We live in a democracy, Parliament has spoken, and those who want Parliament to speak again and say something different next time have to go through those channels. That’s Home Office/IPS’s patch anyway, and they are co-sponsors of the get-together. So the approach is, taking the work of IPS as a given in this landscape, what are the great known unknowns, including areas like privacy and consent.”
There was no debate. HO/IPS never seriously considered any alternatives to its centralised surveillance model, and certainly didn’t engage meaningfully with critics of its ID proposals. Opponents of the HO scheme went through all available channels and were variously atttacked, vilified and ridiculed for our efforts. The Act was steamrollered through by the Whips of a government with a large majority, not because Parliament - or anyone - was convinced by the arguments or evidence. In fact, the latter was noticeably absent.
To discuss privacy and consent while assuming “the work of IPS as a given in this landscape” is a complete farce. Appeals to “democracy” when such critical - nay, fundamental - issues are not utterly clear and at the very heart of the scheme shows just how desperate HO/IPS have become. And, given the stated position of all the Opposition parties but most notably the Conservatives, assuming that the IPS model has a shelf-life longer than the next general election would be daft - if not commercial/reputational suicide.
Privacy is not a bolt-on option. And you only have to read the Act (and the ‘data-sharing’ elements of other Bills) to see that consent isn’t even on the table.
I’m all for a proper debate and meaningful engagement with government but please don’t dignify this event with such a label. The greatest “threat to privacy and the public trust” *IS* the Home Office scheme, and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to wake up and smell the roses. You are falling into the trap of playing with a bully who is, in effect, saying “It’s my ball…”
The DTI may have a pot of money, but claims that what it is commissioning will be proper research if everything is to be constrained by the HO/IPS model are a complete joke. I’m afraid we’re looking at little more than another £10 million of spin.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
also Stefan Brands quotes
> “This new identity infrastructure must offer assured privacy and depend on
> truly informed consent. Each time a person uses an identity service or
> enrols in an access control system, they will need to understand what
> information they are providing to whom - as well as how it will be used and
> further disseminated - before consenting to provide it. They will also need
> to be confident that solely the information required for that particular
> entitlement would be provided.”
and writes…
July 6th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
When Phil says
that all strikes me as fair comment. They should have engaged then, and they should engage now.
But when Phil says
I say hey Phil - don’t diss our gig. I’m looking foward to the best and most open engagement we’ve yet seen from government on IDM (apart maybe from Crosby who hasnt reported yet…Easter is very late in HM Treasury this year).
If DTI and IPS want to discuss privacy and consent let’s help. If p&c are incompatible with the IPS model let’s say so and why. If IPS asks a PA consultant called Alison Quince to go round talking to the awkward squad (aka the good guys) let’s say “better late than never” and talk. Let’s see what she comes up with (did she talk to you Phil? She should’ve)
I bet the people who apply for the dosh are serious researchers. ESRC and ESPRC wll want results hat stand up, not more spin for IPS.
I’m really looking forward to Monday. I’m sorry youre not coming.