A report released by the London School of Economics (LSE) has found the UK government’s plans to introduce a national biometric ID card deeply flawed, reports Silicon.
Although the LSE is not against the idea of national ID cards, it believes the current proposals are too complex, technically unsafe, overly prescriptive and lacking a foundation of public trust and confidence. The report also raised concerns of the feasibility of the scheme from the IT suppliers who are likely to work on it.
“The proposed system unnecessarily introduces, at a national level, a new tier of technological and organisational infrastructure that will carry associated risks of failure. A fully integrated national system of this complexity and importance will be technologically precarious and could itself become a target for attacks by terrorists or others,” said the LSE
Despite opposition from the Liberal Democrats, the ID card bill was approved by MPs last month, and it is due for its second reading in the House of Lords this week. The government hopes to get it passed into law before the likely May election, but some MPs think it will have to be dropped.
Liberal Democrat MP Richard Allan thinks the government should wait until after the election to re-think its “half-baked” ID card proposal.
“Thankfully it looks like the government will run out of time. If the bill can’t be properly scrutinised then it is entirely wrong to put it on the statute book. It will be best if they quietly let it die and then think again about the whole notion of a national identity register and ID cards,” he said.
The most troubling part of the report was the IT community’s reluctance to endorse the plan, especially since they stand to gain huge profits from government contracts.
Professor Patrick Dunleavy, from the LSE’s government department, told Silicon: “It is troubling contractors and suppliers. There is a chorus of dissent and disquiet about the scheme. We have received input from suppliers that the cost would be considerable and if the process produces a very costly and ultimately failed or only partially successful project this is highly damaging for the firms involved.”