46. Supplementary memorandum
submitted by the British Computer Society (BCS)
The BCS would wish to draw the attention of
the committee to the previous consultations on this topic where
we have raised some concerns over the viability of the project,
and we will be reiterating those concerns in our submission to
the Home Office later.
The primary concern is that there does not seem
to be any firm and fixed statement of what the system is meant
to achieve, what success or failure criteria are imposed and which
scope limitations have been imposed. Without such fixed objectives,
the risk of failure is significantly increased. Given the already
high risk attached to extremely large systems this would be a
major concern. It is also a concern that this work does not seem
to tie in to current work on identification of the citizen, as
proposed by e-government initiatives, and there seems to be a
risk that the two systems may not be fully compatible (or mutually
consistent). It is imperative that if the system is to retain
its credibility it must be demonstrably reliable, secure and accurate.
Whilst the British Computer Society will be
submitting evidence upon the consultation paper issued by the
Home Office, the following points upon the draft bill are highlighted
for the consideration of the Home Affairs Committee.
1. We note that there is no clause in the
draft bill to cover the situation of those within our society
who are incapacitated, infirm or otherwise incapable of handling
the complexities of an identity card. Such people, who need to
be recognised, may have a responsible carer or legal attorney
handling their affairs. It would seem sensible to allow a nominated
"carer" or legal representative to act for an individual
in some (carefully controlled) circumstances. However the way
the bill is currently worded this action appears to be an illegal
act. Access to a person's details by their executors also appears
to be impossible.
2. We note that Clause 3.4 and 3.5 implies
that the Home Secretary may be able to modify the information
held. Can this clause be reworded to be more explicit in its meaning
as it is assumed that the intent is for the Home Secretary to
alter the nature of the information to be kept, rather than the
information itself.
3. In Clause 22(2) we note that information
from the Identity Register about a person may be released without
his or her consent. This information can be released not only
to a wide range of "responsible" people, but to those
people requesting verification of identity, if any of the facts
they quote is in error. The latter seems to introduce a process
weakness which could result in the release of valid information
to an interested enquirer who has randomly supplied incorrect
information. It seems unlikely that the Clause intends this to
happen. Any release of personal information without the person's,
specific consent, or notification to the citizen should be subject
to stringent control, and should be restricted to security authorities
and others empowered under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers
Act.
4. The bill and consultation documents state
that children will not have an identity card until they reach
the age of 16. The BCS questions the reasoning behind this statement,
on the grounds that unless you are identified at birth, (or at
entry to the UK if born overseas), it is quite difficult to prove
someone's identity later and adds to the complexity of the whole
process.
5. Clause 12.1. There is a requirement to
notify the death of a citizen to the register and we assume that
as under current passport requirements the identity card should
be returned. We trust that this will be a part of the registration
of death processes performed by the deceaseds' next of kin, as
Clause 12.1 states that "an individual to whom an ID card
has been issued must notify etc" and this is clearly impossible
after death. The bill as it currently stands is unclear.
6. The draft bill makes it a requirement
that a citizen must supply his or her biometric information on
request. This may not always be as easy for people to supply as
the act suggests—not only for the disabled, house-bound
or institutionalised members of our society, but also country
dwellers who don't have easy access to transport, may also suffer.
In remote areas an individual may have to travel considerable
distances in order to find a centre with the right equipment.
The Committee may wish to make provision for those people who
are housebound or infirm, and also those who are unable to drive
(or can't), people who can't leave their livestock (for example
at spring lambing season), and people who through hardship cannot
afford the train or bus fare, etc.
7. Whilst not strictly part of the bill,
it should be noted that BCS has already raised a major concern
in previous consultations that the management of large databases
(and indeed large systems) such as that proposed by this bill,
is extremely complex and prone to error. We note and welcome that
in the consultation paper an Inter-Departmental Identity Card
Programme Board is proposed, but might suggest that this could
include advisors from organisations, who have relevant experience
in this field, such as BCS.
8. The BCS would like to remind the Committee
that biometric data, whilst highly accurate, is not infallible.
There is always a possibility of process error being introduced
in the back-end systems, further reducing the accuracy of the
system. The BCS is concerned that information originally correctly
supplied to the Identity Register may become corrupt or lost.
Considering the proposed uses of the Identity Register, incorrect
data would constitute a very serious matter for the citizen involved.
The Act should therefore make specific provision for the detection
and correction of errors which may arise. A formal process should
be created, whereby the citizen confirms, on a regular basis,
the correctness of the stored information. This verification process
should be free of charge to the citizen. Further to this, if the
Identity Register is found to contain wrong information pursuant
to Clause 22.2 or other relevant clauses, and the citizen suffered
embarrassment or loss as a result, who would be liable for the
damage caused?
9. The BCS is pleased that the points which
were raised in previous consultations on this subject have been
taken on board and included in the current consultation paper.
May 2004
| 
