IfG.CC -
Institute for eGovernment

The Office of the e-Envoy has recently published, as a Consultation Document, a draft 'policy' framework entitled "Smart Cards: Enabling e-Government"; to which responses are required by the end of October. Behind the consultation process, the principal question is "do the policies and supporting actions in the framework identify the key issues in the roll-out and development of smart card enabled services across the public sector?".

Within the document, references are made to the smart card issued to asylum seekers by the Home Office (termed the Application Registration Card), the DVLA, the Passport Office and the mooted possible issue of the "entitlement card". These fledgling schemes all embrace the contentious issue of acting as an ID mechanism.

Whatever your views on the 'politics' of having to carry an ID card and on the horrors or perceived benefits of "function creep" - concerning the [your] personal data that could be rendered accessible across government departments, ngo's and, in rare cases, the private sector - what strategically and technically is up?

In a nutshell, the Government is intent on creating a suitable environment, generally by supporting and, indeed, championing the necessary infrastructure, for the timely issuance of multi-application, interoperable, smart cards.

These cards would offer access to public services (those provided by central and local government) primarily by evidencing 'proof of entitlement' and associated functions / support programmes.

The consultation paper is well researched, presents a credible argument and clearly recognises the problem areas and technical hurdles that must be overcome.

However, when mentioning:

• "safeguard[ing] citizen's rights"
• "data transparency"
• "ensuring standards compliance"
• "delivery of secure government services and e-commerce"
• "compliance with Data Protection Act and by implication Freedom of Information Act"
• "personal information stored or accessed... should be readily accessible by cardholder"

the document is rather glib and non-committal as to substance. Certainly the DPA Principles state that "data processing must be lawful", but moving the goal posts to suit is a common Government manoeuvre. If the 'personal data' is both encrypted and uses symbols - what is the merit in accessing the unintelligible.

To guarantee 'transparency', some indications concerning the following points would be most welcome:

• accurate specifications on what data will be held and by which secure mechanisms
• who will have what access and why.
• what rules govern what services / functionality.
• the projected cost basis for each government agency - who will pay for what.

Who amongst us are optimists?

Quelle: IT Director