Feeds

UK ID card service mounts birth, marriage, death landgrab

A big hello to whole-life logging

Gartner critical capabilities for enterprise endpoint backup

The UK Identity & Passport Service (IPS) has staged an identity landgrab on birth, marriage and death records. From April 2008 the General Register Office, which is responsible for recording these matters and is currently a directorate of the Office of National Statistics, is to become part of IPS, meaning that IPS will be logging you from the moment you're born until the moment you die.

The logic of the move is chilling. The UK ID card scheme itself only requires registration for an ID card from age 16, while the passport part of the deal only, obviously, needs to have data on people who have passports. But... IPS has entirely and obviously unfeasible plans to make money by promoting itself to the status of the UK's de facto identity services broker, with passport validation and identity verification services being early manifestations of how it proposes to make money out of this. But if IPS is to be able to grow its offerings from simply checking if a passport is genuine into a general ID verification service, then it makes sense to have everybody in the database, whether they like it or not.

IPS also intends to use biographical footprint data as part of the passport application process, so the birth record has a relevance in that sense. As Home Office Minister Meg Hillier* says, "In order to... fully realise the benefits of combining registration of life events in England and Wales and the issuing of passports, it is sensible that the IPS and GRO should be part of the same organisation." It's worth noting here that the Scottish citizenry has some opportunity to maintain a slightly greater level of freedom, or at the very least to be entertained by some grandstanding on the subject from First Minister Alec Salmond. Passports are a UK national issue, births, marriages and deaths are devolved - in Scotland, to a hostile Nationalist administration.

Also worth flagging is that reference to "registration of life events". This relates in some measure to the Office of National Statistics' idea of "through life records", which were intended to take the basic and relatively uncontentious matter of birth, marriage and death registration and flesh it out into the somewhat more chilling notion of of a continually updated life record. So was that Web 2.0, or just Stasi?

Considering the new owners, it's now pretty clear which it is. The ONS/GRO has already been co-operating with IPS on data sharing, one of the objectives of this being to tackle "Day of the Jackal" ID fraud, around 30 years after Frederick Forsyth first drew it to the world's attention. Previous statements on the relationship between the ONS/PRO side of ID and the IPS spoke of increased co-operation and data sharing, and during the passage of the ID Cards Act it became clear that the ONS' plans to build a population register via the Citizen Information Project were a dead duck. Two population registers made no sense at all, and as the National Identity Register was flavour of the month, that was obviously the one they were going to keep.

But how far down this road would you go? The answer, evidenced by this week's announcement, appears to be all the way. The government has followed up the effective merger of the ONS' population register with the NIR by subsuming the GRO in the IPS Borg, and the uncontentious register that previously existed will, as of next April, be run by an organisation which proposes to make money out of compiling and continually updating the "biographical footprint" of every live individual in the UK (see here for more detail on the identity verification service and its roots in IPS' Personal Identification Project, PIP). So not a lot of controversy there, then. If you're thinking of getting born any time after Q1 2008, you might like to consider doing it somewhere else.

* Previous Home Office ministers in charge of passports and ID cards (there have been many) have been given relatively prosaic titles. In keeping (presumably) with the Brown administration's slightly more Orwellian edge, however, Hillier is "Home Office Minister responsible for Identity." Just identity, but all of it. ®

Gartner critical capabilities for enterprise endpoint backup

More from The Register

next story
'Stop dissing Google or quit': OK, I quit, says Code Club co-founder
And now a message from our sponsors: 'STFU or else'
Ex US cybersecurity czar guilty in child sex abuse website case
Health and Human Services IT security chief headed online to share vile images
Don't even THINK about copyright violation, says Indian state
Pre-emptive arrest for pirates in Karnataka
The police are WRONG: Watching YouTube videos is NOT illegal
And our man Corfield is pretty bloody cross about it
Felony charges? Harsh! Alleged Anon hackers plead guilty to misdemeanours
US judge questions harsh sentence sought by prosecutors
Oz biz regulator discovers shared servers in EPIC FACEPALM
'Not aware' that one IP can hold more than one Website
Apple tried to get a ban on Galaxy, judge said: NO, NO, NO
Judge Koh refuses Samsung ban for the third time
Pedals and wheel in that Google robo-car or it's off the road – Cali DMV
And insists on $5 million insurance per motor against accidents
prev story

Whitepapers

Top 10 endpoint backup mistakes
Avoid the ten endpoint backup mistakes to ensure that your critical corporate data is protected and end user productivity is improved.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Backing up distributed data
Eliminating the redundant use of bandwidth and storage capacity and application consolidation in the modern data center.
The essential guide to IT transformation
ServiceNow discusses three IT transformations that can help CIOs automate IT services to transform IT and the enterprise
Next gen security for virtualised datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.