National Loyalty Cards

Today, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith relaunches the ID card scheme as a kind of glorified loyalty card. [BBC News, March 5th 2008, comments by Robin Wilton, Scribe, Robin again].

A sarcastic commentary on his blog from Nick Robinson, the BBC political editor:

"By stopping the preaching of her old boss and adopting the reassuring tones of a bank manager Jacqui Smith is hoping to tip those polls back [in favour of ID cards] again." [ID cards]

Like bank managers are reassuring?!? A couple of comments (from Max Sceptic and Geoff Knott) point out the irony. What kind of bank manager is Nick talking about here anyway?

• Adam Applegarth (Northern Rock)
  
• Captain Mainwaring (Swallow Bank, Walmington-On-Sea branch)
  
• "Pal" (call centre clerk, somewhere in Asia)

It seems that most experts and many laymen are now convinced that the ID card scheme cannot possibly achieve the benefits claimed by the government. I have discussed this matter on this blog many times before (see Label: ID cards). So what is going on? There are three possible explanations.

• The government is very clever. The government knows something we don't know, or has a cunning plan it is hiding from us.
  

• The government is very stupid. Despite the growing evidence and expert opinion to the contrary, the goverment still believes that the technology will work, the costs will be contained, and the alleged benefits will be delivered.
  

• The government is completely powerless. A major initiative like this has got so much inner momentum that it cannot be diverted by mere mortals. Politicians have sold their souls to the devil, or perhaps a few large contractors. Interested parties are pulling the strings.

And these explanations are not mutually exclusive. A government is a complex beast, and who knows what inner torments it is suffering? Ah, bless!

Root Cause

In some versions of systems thinking, we are urged to see "the big picture" and look for "the root cause". Consultants and other practitioners often describe themselves and their practices as "holistic". 

Other versions of systems thinking open our eyes to the possibility that there may be many different big pictures, many different root causes. Given this possibility, we may be wary of the "holistic" label, because it is sometimes attached to a fixed way of constructing big pictures and finding root causes, rather than an open-minded appreciative system. 

In my previous post on Bullying, I contrasted two possible interventions

• dealing with a single manifestation of bullying
• dealing with the "root cause" of bullying

Using ID cards to prevent (some instances of) bullying is hardly dealing with the root cause of bullying. (Unless you believe that it is the lack of ID cards that somehow causes bullying in the first place.) In terms of Donella Meadow's 12-point framework for system intervention, the ID card introduces an additional information flow (leverage point 6) that enables an additional control or constraint (leverage point 5). 

There are two problems with the "root cause" approach to solving complex problems. Firstly an epistemological one - it encourages us to imagine that there might be a single identifiable thing called "the root cause". And secondly an ethical one - understanding causes is sometimes interpreted as providing excuses for the perpetrators. 

If we wish to understand bullying, we may observe that many bullies have a history of being bullied themselves, and so we may come to feel some sympathy for the bullies as well as for the victims. If we see bullying as a chronic problem, we may wish to look for systemic long-term solutions rather than merely quick fixes, and this may include providing some healing for the historic pain suffered by those who are currently inflicting their pain on other people. 

If we imagine there is a single root cause, and it is a Good Thing to tackle root causes, then healing may come to take precedence over punishment and retribution. We live in a society where the criminal sometimes seems to get more care and attention than the victim. 

Some people go to the opposite extreme. The purpose of toughness is to send a clear message - bullying will not be tolerated. Anything that smacks of sympathy for the perpetrator may dilute this message, and may therefore encourage bullying. 

But if we see bullying as a many-headed monster, with no single root cause, it may make more sense to institute a diverse cultural anti-bullying programme with a tough combination of preventative and remedial (redemptive) action. 

Some people (from both ends of the political spectrum) are convinced they know what is morally right, and therefore have no need for practical knowledge of what really works.

But in my view, the moral problem and the epistemological problem and the practical problem are inextricably linked. How many causes, how many effects? If we pay proper attention to the causes of bullying, what effect does this actually have? What is the real purpose of toughness?

Wikipedia: 12 leverage points appreciative system root cause

Related posts: Anonymity (January 2007)

Bullying

"All secondary pupils in Scotland should be given ID cards in an effort to stamp out bullying, according to a teaching union." [BBC News, December 27th 2006]

If combined with an effective system for using and controlling the ID cards, this measure might possibly deal with one particular manifestation of bullying - stealing pre-pay lunch cards.

But what is the likely effect on other types of bullying? In order to believe that it is worth eliminating a single type of bullying, you have to believe one of the following propositions.

• this will have no effect on other types of bullying
• the total amount / severity of bullying will be significantly reduced, even if the elimination of this type of bullying triggers an increase in other types of bullying
  
• other types of bullying are someone else's problem
  

Perhaps the reason why this measure is being recommended by teachers unions is because this particular type of bullying (stealing lunch cards) is one that is particularly difficult for teachers (as well as parents and other authorities) to ignore. Instead of dealing with the root causes of bullying, let's just deal with the types of bullying that generate the most hassle for teachers.

But there's another reason why this measure won't work - it is based on a false assumption about the purpose and nature of bullying. This measure may prompt the school bully to invent new ways of stealing your lunch, but it is not going to stop the school bully taking your lunch card and dropping it down the toilet. Bullying is not a zero-sum game.

But doing something - however ineffectual - seems better than doing nothing. So it seems tempting to latch onto a new technological device - the mysterious ID card.

---

See my earlier posts: Identity Cards, Purpose Tacked On Afterwards.
Later post on Root Cause - covering some theoretical as well as practical issues.

Power

What is the mechanism that causes politicians to change their minds once they gain power?

The Spanish Socialist party under Filipe González campaigned against Spain's membership of NATO, and promised a referendum if they were elected. Once in power they decided that NATO membership was a Good Thing. When the referendum was held (after a long delay) González campaigned for Spain to remain in NATO. [sources: CountryStudies, CIA World Factbook]

When in opposition, Tony Blair campaigned against identity cards. "Instead of wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on compulsory ID cards, let that money provide thousands more police officers on the beat in our local community." [source: New Britain: My Vision of a Young Country, via Daily Telegraph via FishNChipPapers] He has now decided that identity cards are a Good Thing.

My faith in the political process has been permanently corrupted by watching Yes Minister. I have a mental image of Sir Humphrey Appleby (or his Spanish equivalent) whispering hidden facts and complicated arguments into the newly elected Prime Minister's ear.

What was González told, and by whom, that made him change his mind about NATO? And does Tony Blair listen to anybody?

By the way, I wonder what Mr Google will make of the rare and quite accidental juxtaposition of the two words "power" and "corrupt".

del.icio.us tags: POSIWID
Technorati tags: POSIWID

Purpose Tacked On Afterwards

There seems to be a common pattern in a lot of major (expensive, high-risk) initiatives. The politicians seem to have decided they want to do something, and then they cast around for some plausible justification.

But if the first purpose doesn't stick, they don't abandon the scheme. Oh no. They just make up a new purpose.

This pattern seems to apply to the UK Identity Card scheme (discussed in my previous post), as well as to the Iraq war (see my post Yadda Yadda Yadda, discussing the suggestion that the bringing of democracy to Iraq was an imaginary and inauthentic purpose).

The apparent advantage of this pattern is that schemes with imaginary or unstable purpose can never fail - in so far as we can almost always find some purpose or other that has been fulfilled. So there is practically no risk - at least for the politicians who promote these schemes with an enthusiasm that is not always shared by the voters and taxpayers.

However, schemes whose purpose is imaginary or unstable seem to be particularly vulnerable to mission creep and therefore grossly escalating costs. In order to escape one kind of failure (errors of execution), they generate worse kinds of failure (errors of planning, errors of intention).

And eventually the public realises it has been conned. So the politicians get the blame after all. (Or is this just wishful thinking on my part?)

Identity Cards

Grasshoppermind asks for a POSIWID take on identity cards, refers us to the latest story in Computing Identity card scheme to cost $5.4bn, and suggests that the purpose of the system is to subsidize the IT industry.

There are many other large IT schemes for which this explanation might make sense, including the NHS's National Programe for Information Technology (NPfIT). (For general information about this scheme, see the NHS IT Info page put up by a number of senior academics including Professor Ross Anderson.)

Obviously there are some highly influential representatives of the IT industry who have excellent access to Government ministers, and there are government ministers (as well as opposition politicians) who happen to have a background in management consultancy and IT.

Not surprisingly, the main beneficiaries of these very large schemes tend to be a small number of large IT companies. So the effect is not an evenly distributed subsidy of the IT industry, but a concentration of economic power.

And I think that's the clue. Perhaps the hidden agenda behind these schemes is not subsidy but centralization?

---

But there is something particularly odd about the identity card scheme, which the other schemes don't share. Identity cards are being proposed to solve a rapidly-shifting series of social problems, including terrorism, crime, identity theft, illegal immigration and benefit fraud. Whenever some expert points out that it will not solve problem A, the proponents of the scheme immediately start talking about problem B instead. Which makes us doubt whether any of these stated purposes are genuine.

We also need to recognize that the widespread criticism of the scheme includes articulate voices from some of the largest computer companies, including Kim Cameron of Microsoft, Michael Osborne of IBM, and of course our old friend Robin Wilton of Sun Microsystems.

But the Government seems determined to go ahead. Is this just some massive folly, like the Millennium Dome squared, or is there some more sinister explanation?

See my earlier posts: The True Motive for Identity Cards and ID Card Compromise, as well as a post on Identity Cards on the TrustBlog.

The True Motive for Identity Cards

Many security experts have expressed some doubts whether the UK's proposed ID card scheme will be able to satisfy the security goals that the supporters of the scheme use to justify the absurd (and secretive) levels of cost and risk.

The official goals apparently include the elimination of terrorism, and the elimination of certain forms of bank fraud (misleadingly known as identity theft).

On the POSIWID blog, we have previously expressed some cynicism about these goals. If the ID card scheme is not going to achieve the official goals, then there must be some other (unofficial) goals. Which they can't tell us about, obviously.

So POSIWID thinking often leads us to suspect a hidden agenda.

But there is another interpretation. If the ID card scheme were combined with a number of other measures (including DNA testing), then it might be able to do more. For example, recent research indicates that there is a gene that is linked to religious belief. Perhaps the ID card will reveal (to appropriately authorized policemen, at a distance of no more than 20 metres) whether I possess this gene.

The ID card scheme doesn't itself satisfy the security goals, but it may provide a useful platform for a range of other security measures. These other security measures will then become inevitable, because that's the only way to justify the money that has already been spent.

(Governments are generally unable to practise zero-based budgeting, because there is too much loss of face in admitting that money has been wasted, so they are forced to waste even more money. Sometimes political accountability is counter-productive.)

Is there a cunning plan here?

Technorati Tag: POSIWID

ID Card Compromise

A possible compromise on the UK Identity Card scheme is reported in today's news.

Ministers are expected to announce a compromise on compulsory identity cards ahead of a Commons vote on Monday. [BBC News, Feb 10th 2006]

What is the likely effect of this compromise?

1. Those responsible for the scheme will be looking to encourage people to carry the card voluntarily. One way of doing this is to provide differential advantages to card-holders. For example, fast-track security in various settings. But this means that these security mechanisms are now designed to produce a beneficial effect on the ID card scheme, and they may become less effective at delivering real security. (I am tempted to say even less effective.)
   
2. This in turn means encouraging a wide range of service providers (such as airlines perhaps) to differentiate between card-holders and others - to accept the identity card for a range of purposes, while making complicated demands on everyone else (passport plus driving licence plus two utility bills, etc. etc.). Thus we have function creep.
   
3. But these service providers have a range of commercial and other goals. This introduces diversity at several levels - diversity of intention as well as diversity of action - which in turn introduces various modes of interoperability risk.

Thus the compromise would decrease effective security, and increase function creep and risk. There's some very bad (or perhaps very devious) systems thinking going on here. I have commented in this blog before about the strange POSIWID logic behind the ID card proposals. If this compromise goes ahead, it will complicate the logic even further.

Further commentary. BBC Action Network, Wired article on Multi-Use ID Cards by Bruce Schneier

Technorati Tag: identity card POSIWID

Achilles Heel

Perfection is for the gods. Heroes are supplied with a fatal flaw, which ultimately destroys them. The gods (or scheming humans) may coax them into situations where they will be most vulnerable, but it is often their own arrogance that does them in.

George Galloway championed many causes, opposed the war in Iraq, stood up for Moslem rights, dared to challenge Tony Blair and George Bush. His vanity led him to join some humiliating TV spectacle, with perhaps lasting damage to his credibility as a politician.

Mark Oaten was a steadfast Liberal, opposing the Labour Party on Identity Cards and Anti-Terror Legislation. An embarrassing scandal has caused him to resign his position as party spokesman.

Did they destroy themselves, or were they set up? What is the POSIWID of such self-destructive behaviour?

 

Update: perhaps not lasting damage in Galloway's case. He won two parliamentary by-elections, in both cases losing the seat in the subsequent general election.

Identity Theft

One of the leading Liberal opponents of ID cards and anti-terror legislations, Mark Oaten MP resigned today as Lib Dem home affairs spokesman, after some embarrassing allegations of not-at-home affairs.

[BBC News, Parliamentary Record]

The UK Government is currently proposing to abandon the Wilson doctrine, which has supposedly protected MPs from surveillance.

[BBC News]

In spy novels, it generally turns out that the rent-boy was employed by the KGB. Poor Mr Oatcake.


Technorati Tag: POSIWID