png%2520(2).png){kind=logo}
Society is becoming ever more digitised as citizens connect to the internet through an increasing array of apps, websites and devices. Even before the coronavirus pandemic, which has accelerated this trend, 96 per cent of UK households were connected to the internet – up from 93 per cent the year before. Through our online interactions, the vast majority of us are building up a digital footprint – a unique and complicated map of data trails, passwords and profiles that could, in theory, come together to comprehensively chart our lives as digital citizens.
However, for better or for worse, in the UK, these data sets remain largely disparate. Even within the public services sphere, systems remain unconnected, and rich and inclusive online profiles that connect all of our activities across our online lives do not exist. The reason for this is simple – we lack a unique digital identifier, something that could be used to connect our online activities to us as a verified individual.
While many might recoil at such an idea, digital identifiers, when deployed consensually and in a way that clearly delivers benefits to the user, are a much more palatable concept. As Doug Brown, Capita Consulting’s chief data scientist and head of data and AI guild explains, “this is all about the value exchange of accessing services as a result of providing data.” Across public service provision in particular, having a digital identity that improves access and saves time could offer significant benefits to the population.
Several governments, such as those in Estonia and Sweden, have already embarked upon a mass rollout of digital identity systems, enabling the public to access services with reduced friction. However, as Greg Williams, WIRED’s deputy global editorial director, summarises, “in the UK, we are still relying on physical documents for everything from getting a mortgage to proving our identity.”
The UK’s digital identity debate is not new. But according to Taavi Kotka, Estonia’s first government CIO and a cornerstone of Estonia’s successful e-residency rollout, after years of inaction, the UK risks being left behind in the wake of other nations’ digital successes.
To explore this topic further, in partnership with Capita, WIRED brought together a group of leading experts from the London School of Economics, Goldsmiths, University of London, the Golden Valley Development and Estonia’s first ever CIO to discuss pros, cons, and the potential path ahead.
Any UK citizen who has changed their name will have endured a heavy administrative burden associated with updating multiple organisations. Identity documents must be scanned, signed, witnessed and shared several times over. Imagine a world in which critical services – banks, GPs, dentists, HMRC, pension providers, the DVLA, to name but a few – can all be updated through one set of actions.
Having a unique digital identity could present an easy, convenient solution to a public services sphere that is, at present, unnecessarily complex. It could also link to trusted private sector institutions such as banks and private healthcare providers to further reduce friction.
But, for citizens, it’s not just about reducing admin. Having a single unique identifier connecting their data has a multitude of benefits. As Capita Consulting’s Brown explains, “digital identity could be the door to providing citizens with seamless access to healthcare and education, as well as other government programmes.” For example, using a patient’s unique digital identity, healthcare providers can instantly know their past medical history, helping to inform treatment decisions.
Governments also stand to benefit from digitised public services provision, verified digital identities and unique citizen identifiers. As highlighted by Capita in its most recent Pulse survey, over 85 per cent of respondents believed that the informed use of data will be important for driving decision making following on from the pandemic. With the influx of good, representative data, any decisions made are better informed. Policies can become more relevant and useful to the populace. Even fraud can be reduced as systems can instantly prove if a user is legitimate or not. Additionally, the longer term economic savings associated with fewer, more efficient systems could be immense.
As many countries have shown, there are clear benefits of digitising and connecting public services, and giving citizens a unique identifier to access these. Canada, Sweden, India, Estonia and China have rolled out digital identification schemes, and have seen the benefits. As Kotka states, “for the countries who have implemented unique identifiers, the results are great. In Estonia, the public trusts the government more and feels more empowered, as they know exactly how and where their data is being used.”
In terms of realising the vision of having better, more joined-up digital services, accessed through a unique user identity, Kotka presents a relatively simplistic path ahead. The first step is finding a universally accessible, indisputable way to prove an individual’s identity. This might be achieved through a predominantly private-sector based stance, following a scheme such as the Swedish bankID model which utilised the existence of a citizen’s bank account along with a national registration number. Alternatively, it might be wholly government led, such as in Estonia’s e-residency scheme. The second step is to use this identity to connect data-sets and services in a joined-up way. So, if the steps are so clear, and the opportunities so sizable, then why hasn’t the UK government taken them?
While it is clear that opportunities exist, this is a multi-faceted debate, with several factors impeding the move from talk to action.
According to Kotka, for the government at least, it’s all about the incentives. Those countries that have rolled out successful digital identity schemes had a clear incentive to do so. For India, it was tackling corruption; for Estonia, it was the need to elevate the country’s status as a leading digital economy to help it access global talent. Although incentives such as longer-term economic savings and improved citizen experiences are clear, for the UK, the short-term benefits are unlikely to outweigh the upheaval, time and expense of rolling out joined-up, digitised services with unique identifiers to enable easy access.
The challenge here is also one of systems and strategies. The UK has a large number of unconnected ways to prove identity; from passports, to driving licences, to the Verify system – the list is ongoing. According to Dr Edgar Whitley, associate professor in Information Systems at LSE, “government departments are all claiming to sing from the same song sheet, but are all doing it slightly differently”. The UK government has a National Data Strategy but, as Brown points out, this is unlikely to address necessary transformations.
A further barrier to progress is public mistrust around the government’s approach to data and identity. Individuals worry about how their data could be used against them and are wary about trusting the government with any further information than necessary. It is likely that the actions of Big Tech companies and other bad actors over the course of the past ten years have indelibly changed public trust in government data sharing. This is compounded by the UK’s track record in the space of National Identity. As Lisa Talia Moretti, Goldsmith’s associate lecturer in management studies, phrases it, “the UK has a long and chequered history with identity cards.” The then government’s attempt at a National Identity scheme in 2002 was perceived by many as an infringement upon civil liberties, and memories of this will potentially taint user attitudes to any schemes that might follow.
While the public’s attitudes towards data collection and usage are shifting, concerns around data usage and consent remain. According to Moretti, “there has been a huge sea change in how people understand data and the value of their own data. As awareness about safety and security online grows, many prefer to opt out of sharing their data. But for those that do share, they want to know that it will be protected and secured.”
Finally, we must not overlook the fundamental flaw with digital services and digital identity schemes – by their very nature, they are unavailable to the digitally excluded. This important minority is then left out of data sets, which leads to inaccurate assumptions, skewed data and unhelpful policies. Representative data is vital to increasing understanding and rolling out nuanced schemes that are valuable for users and governments alike. Any future initiatives need to be designed in a way that ensures the benefits are for all and, critically, serve to reduce, and not widen, the existing digital divide.
What cannot be done is a copy-and-paste effort based on the successes of other countries. What follows next has to be tailored to the unique context, demographics and public attitudes of the UK. If we are to deliver better solutions for all, then there are several things which need to be done differently:
Put citizens at the heart of the initiatives
Before rolling out new initiatives, understanding public attitudes and needs is vital. There is a line between convenience and intrusion, and it is important to understand where that line exists for the public. This means listening to, and actively involving, communities across the UK. As Reid Derby, innovation lead at the Golden Valley Development, explains, “there are a whole set of assumptions that we need to test. We need to figure out how we can put the citizen at the heart of this.” Moretti supports this, suggesting we flip the question on its head, “perhaps rather than just asking people what they want, we should also explore the value that we are trying to create for individuals in society”.
Build trust in data-sharing through total transparency and dynamic consent
In-building trust is vital to the success of any scheme. Privacy should be a cornerstone of the strategy, so individuals can trust that any and all data is collected securely. As Whitley phrases it, “we’re not objecting to data sharing – we just need the system to do it transparently and with full openness.” Individuals should also be able to access systems, consent to their data being collected, agree what it can be used for and change their mind whenever they want. Critically, they should be able to see exactly where and when their data is being used. This rebalance of power would place the emphasis on the user, not the system. According to Kotka, a key success factor in Estonia was “showing the benefits of such a system early, so that society buys into it”. This helped citizens to want similar experiences which, in turn, helped drive further adoption.
Ensure skills, systems and legislation support success
The right systems, skills and legislation must be established by governments before they initiate any changes. Legislation has to support easy, safe, relevant and secure data sharing between service areas. Systems must be dynamic, offering clear user benefits and easy access. The skillsets of those involved in developing the solutions must cover the technical build and human-centred design thinking critical to developing solutions that are truly fit for purpose.
Educate citizens around the opportunities
As Derby points out, “improving digital literacy will ensure that a wider cross-section of individuals can engage with, and play a part in, shaping the systems that they utilise regularly, while delivering wider benefits for both the public and the economy.”
Furthermore, helping citizens to understand the value exchange in sharing their data, and why their data holds value, will help encourage uptake of digital services. A cornerstone of bridging the gap should be the drive for inclusivity and ensuring that members of marginalised communities are not left behind.
Reframe our thinking – it doesn’t have to be all or nothing
Ultimately, a reset needs to happen regarding the way that digital service provision is thought about. It’s not a matter of all or nothing. More public services can become digitised without the need for unique digital identifiers, fully joined-up public service provision or links to commercial data sets. It may be that a scaling-up approach, which gradually builds services (and trust) is the way ahead.
In fact, the UK may already have a viable start-point from which to scale up. The NHS app, developed during the Covid-19 crisis, which already has over 4.8 million users, could perhaps be used as a model to build trust around a whole range of digital service public provisioning. With public trust in this app seemingly high, it is not so hard to imagine expanding its functionality to see it act as an interface between healthcare practitioners and patients.
There is a clear argument for starting with the end in mind. That means having a shared view of outcomes that the UK is trying to achieve. It will involve answering questions such as which services would benefit from greater digitisation? Is the goal to connect new services to existing ones? Should individuals have unique identifiers that enable them to access these services with ease?
Of course, it’s not just about where the journey is heading, it’s also about how we will get there. As Whitley states, “do it right – as there are lots and lots of ways to do it wrong.” There needs to be clarity on what the path to success looks like, and the metrics by which success will be measured. It also needs to work to include the public throughout, which includes addressing who has the skills and knowledge to make the system happen. Critically, the question of who is going to fund the scheme also needs to be addressed.
To answer these questions in a meaningful way, different perspectives and voices need to be heard – including those that have little access to the digital world. Whatever the answers, collaboration between multi-disciplined groups will be vital to delivering desired outcomes. As Brown envisions, “we need to get started - we get a team of people, with different perspectives and different views, that want to get something practical in place.” This will mean looking beyond the usual suspects and finding those with the right insights and skills to deliver the vision. For Derby, it’s that “we’ve got to be more honest and open about how we work on this together, because we are all in it together.”
But perhaps, most importantly, if the UK is serious about pushing forward in this space, it’s time to do as Kotka suggests and “stop talking and act”. This debate is not a new one, and as more and more countries roll out connected digital services and digital identification schemes, the UK risks being at the back of the pack.
For more information on Capita's Pulse surveys, head to https://www.capita.com/c/great-opportunity-yougov-report
For more information on WIRED Consulting, head to https://consulting.wired.co.uk/
This article was originally published by WIRED UK
