people need to prove who they are many times during a day.[From In Development » Just what is ‘identity’?]
No, they don’t. People need to prove that they are entitled to do something or are allowed to do something several times during a day, which is actually an entirely different issue. Mind you, it’s an often-repeated mistake, even amongst those who should know better but haven’t really thought it through. When he was the Home Office Minister for ID cards, Andy Burnham said that “I take the view that it is part of being a good citizen, proving who you are, day in day out”. How wrong can you be? Other than the current Home Office Minister for ID cards, Meg Hillier, who said that we should see ID cards as “passports in-country”. Or, indeed, the Home Office Minister for ID cards before him, Tony McNulty, who said that
“There are now so many almost daily occasions when we have to stand up and verify our identity.”[From BBC NEWS | Politics | Labour admits ID card ‘oversell’]
I blame the education system, but blog readers may have some other explanations as to why this same, fundamental, error is propagated by people who ought to have some grasp of the issues.
This core misunderstanding of identity is what makes it so difficult for a proper debate, and therefore a proper requirements specification, to emerge. Which, as far as I know, it hasn’t. The number of times that you have to prove who are you are very limited: when you open a new bank account and perhaps when you enroll at a place of education. The rest of the time, your identity is irrelevant and applying the full panoply of miracle technologies, from face recognition to portable fingerprint scanners, to the problem is a waste of money.
These opinions are my own (I think) and are presented solely in my capacity as an interested member of the general public [posted with ecto