Thread by @EinsteinsAttic

Here we go again...

gov.uk/government/new…

(Noting that a #SingleSignOn is not *necessarily* an '#identity' - that depends on a whole range of things, such as what is added or linked to this "#GOVUKaccount", and how they/it is #verified...)

A blog post from @Jen_Allum, "Introducing #GOVUKaccounts":

gds.blog.gov.uk/2020/09/22/int…

Posing a few questions:

...so let's take 'em one by one.

1) #Transparency - simple! Data Usage Reports. Every citizen should know how their data is used; if they have a trusted login, you can tell them.

Someone even did a demo for you, FIVE YEARS ago (scroll down):

medconfidential.org/2015/implement…

2) #Personal vs #Professional - also simple! Keep 'em separate, cf. #IdentityAssurance Principle 3:
gov.uk/government/upl… #Multiplicity "Citizens can use & choose as many different identifiers [i.e. accounts] as they want." Anything else builds the "#uberCRM" you say you won't.

3) '#Personalisation' failure - guess what? #Article14 sez assigning people to buckets sucks; citizens aren't customers! In commerce, telling folk what they (don't) want based on others' choices loses you a sale; doing that in Gov't/public services can really screw people over...

...so DON'T! Also, don't do what @DWP does with UC statements (to pick an example). If you present a short 'list' to people, you MUST also make the long/full 'list' available too. Anything else could be #discriminatory, and will certainly seem unfriendly to those denied options.

P.S. one other point on (2), don't forget #DelegatedAuthority; one of the use cases that screwed @GOVUKverify.

And if you want this to genuinely work for people, and across government, you're gonna have to be a whole bunch smarter than @DCMS, who just peed in the 'ID pool' 🤦🏻‍♂️

I see @govdigerati's taken an interest...