Report - Guardian

274 The LSE Identity Project Report: June 2005private sector, and the public sector. The strategic plan lays out several good designprinciples with regard to how to build an identity management infrastructure for e-government:- Page 12: “… do not authorise uncontrolled generalised exchanges betweendepartments.”- Page 13: “… grant citizens more transparency in the monitoring of theiradministrative papers and better control of their personal details … enablecitizens and professionals to have tools and services which will enable them toexercise their rights more simply and completely. … Data storage will remaindecentralised within each government department. Centralised storage … willonly be retained for each service where other possibilities cannot be realisticallyconsidered.”- Page 14: “One of the questions which is causing the most serious doubtsregarding the possible undermining of privacy relates to the uniqueness ormultiplicity of means of identifying the citizens to the government authorities.… The CNIL has ruled against [the use of a single identifier] ("to each sphere itsidentifier") … The Government … wishes to retain sectoral identifiers.”- Page 15: “the most successful solution consists of creating an identity federator,enabling the user to use the single identifier to access each of the services of hisor her choice without either the government databases or the identity federatoritself being able to make the link between the different identifiers.”This is certainly a significant step forward. However, the PSAE report goes onerroneously to refer to Liberty Alliance ID-FF as an architecture that meets itrequirement on page 15, without realizing that the “identity federator” in ID-FF doeshave the ability to make the link between different citizen identifiers.