Truth from those responsible from IT projects, not least in respect of the training and other costs which are currently studiously ignored.

Yes, and truth about intention and who we’re doing this for. And that the people it’s being done for are engaged in the project from before it starts all the way through to monitoring and improvement.

A commitment to delivery (not just websites saying they are working on it) of enabling technologies to help Local Authorities and others deliver online services quickly and cheaply.

Personally (and I mean ‘from a personal perspective…’ this should not be interpreted as the position or policy of my employer), I think I’d like to hear John Suffolk say something along these lines:

“I have concluded that a National ID Card is not a panacea for all public sector identity management problems, and that we therefore need to adopt a more flexible approach to this issue. Accordingly I have made the following recommendations:

1 – to set up a working group of representatives from those public sector bodies which already specialise in the issuing of credentials and the management of entitlements (such as passports, driving licences, vehicle tax discs and so on). The aim of this group will be to document best practice in credential issue and management, so that any future national credential is built on the basis of past experience, lessons learned and expertise gained.

2 – to prioritise the stated objectives for a national identifier, with the aim of deciding on a single, measurable and achievable initial functional and policy goal for such a project.

3 – to establish discrete work streams to deal with those aspects of public sector identity management which are not best grouped under the banner of ‘national ID card’…”

Far be it from me to put words into anyone’s mouth… ;^)

Oh, and another thing…

“4 – to set up an ongoing and long-term programme of direct engagement with the stakeholders in a national identifier scheme – including relying parties, citizens, privacy advocates, public sector credential issuers, and law enforcement bodies.”

PS- In all the above, I’ve used “ID Card” and “identifier” as short-hand; I mean both to include other relevant components of such a scheme, including – for example – a National Identity register.

1. “There will be a public discussion email list for each major new project on which members of the development team and members of the public will be encouraged to chat about plans and developments.”

2. “Why of course the cheapest way to make our complex services easier to understand would be to add a forum link next to them. The yearly budget spent on moderation would pay back in service improvements about 30 seconds.”

3 “Before launching any major new projects, we’re going to pay a small team of talented developers for up to 3 weeks to see if they can build a substantially functional version of what we want based on standard components (PC, browser etc) for less than £20,000. Only if that’s clearly miles away from what’s needed will be start a huge procurement process.”

“My number one priority is to find out and fix what has been going wrong with projects like Connecting for Health. I will work tirelessly and creatively with colleagues and the wider community to find better ways to build large-scale public systems.”

I wholeheartedly agree with the previous comments, but I want to take it a step further.

It’s good news that there’s a chance to be heard at the right level in an open forum. I also confess to be outcome focussed; but the roadmaps to getting there, if indeed they do exist, are failing the public sector. Policy, such as Every Child Matters, may be correct; but the outcomes do not have measurable targets. It is well known that the primary cause of project failure is poor definition and lack of clarity in objectives. We are working in a highly complex domain of cross agency issues and partnership working – with unclear and possibly conflicting objectives.

Public sector roadmaps have to gain buy in from all stakeholders in practice, governance and technology. People have to see a way forward of working in partnership. They have to use the same language to keep on track for a common purpose. In PRINCE speak, people working in one workstream need to understand their interaction with others. Projects have a clock that, at a minimum, indicates a beginning, a middle and an end. Too many public sector projects ignore the requirements for sustaining the operations for practitioners in local authorities. £ billions have been wasted.

DCLG has spent millions on a national project that purports to provide guidance for partnerships. It covers advice on business cases, governance, legal issues, infrastructure, information sharing, messaging, identity management, federation and last, but not least, sustainability. It is specifically oriented to ensuring that people think about the problems of multi-agency environments, bridging the chasms between central government, local government and the voluntary sector. It also has developed a generic roadmap that provides an agenda for balanced discussion between stakeholders. This is what I commend for your wishlist.

Nobody has said that multi-agency partnerships are easy for delivering positive outcomes, and there’s lots of evidence to the contrary. What is needed is multi-agency education, education, education:
•Education for politicians to understand the concepts and complexities of multi-agency working;
•Education for senior civil servants, chief executives, council leaders, suppliers and their consultants
•Education for teams of people in all public sector practice areas, technology support and programme management.

There is no low hanging fruit in this orchard, but lots of pitfalls. My additional fear, from my own horticultural experience, is that honey fungus is in danger killing all the trees. The Royal Horticultural Society said that the only cure is moving house! Perhaps I should not take this analogy too far.

To end on a positive note. I have seen a glimmer of hope in the 101 project – the single non emergency number to be rolled out nationally by 2008. This is the Home Office partnering with multiple local authority service providers and call takers. At the public launch of the Northumbria 101, all the speakers stressed that partnership and cooperation was a critical success factor. Listen to them; learn from their example. Educate.

No-one has yet delivered a complex on-line service for a large audience.

Many have, however, delivered simple services for very large audiences, linked to complex services for smaller audience.

Good practice starts at the top – with Ministers and special Advisors. Unless and until they understand what is entailed with big systems or big changes these will fail.

Whether or not the technology works the people processes will not, unless the system is built on support and enthusiasm from the bottom up, because front-line staff have been properly consulted, know how it will be them better serve their customers/clients and have faith that it will not fall over and leave them in even worse shit.

Britain is the last 1940s, Staliniist centralised bureuacracy. Even the French have given up on that which Whitehall and its Agencies seek to control. Local Government has the best (and worst) public sector systems in the UK but, on average, their performance is rather better than that of Central, let alone Regional Government.
It is also harder to cover up poor Local Government performance and easier to expose and sort out when it goes wrong.

There is almost no example of successful e-government serving a population of more than 5 miilion. The big US States (e.g. California) are as bad as HMG on delivery except when they decentralise.

Experience from around the world, both public and private, is that programmes of step by step continuous improvement produce more profound change than big bang programmes which enrich consultants, lawyers and the successful salemen (but rarely the shareholders of the sucessful suppliers) while leaving reality much as before.

The majority of those who rely on public services will never use a conventional screen and keyboard. They use a variety of means of electronic communication: mobile phone (usually pre-pay or stolen), large key pad/type, joystick controls, menus et al and many prefer the subpostmiistress or, if it is to complex for her, the local citizens advice bureau (if they have one).

Unless we really start listening, Mrs Wainwright really could win the next election. So we really are going to go for incremental change, consulting those responsible for the front-line delivery of public services and those who rely on them, focussing on low cost, rapid payback changes that will make their lives easier over the next two years. And any Political Advisor who tries to put forward any new “big idea” will find themselves on secondment to the Thamesmead Community Centre one-stop-shop that they will be tasked to create from the budgets, resources and systems they have helped put in place over the past few years.

I therefore ask all you technology enthusiasts to get out of your cyberghettoes, start talking to real human beings, volunteer for groups like IT4Communities, work with those community groups who are delivering front-line services and come up with ideas for enabling our current top 12 suppliers to bridge the gap between our current generation of silo’d services and socially inclusive delivery at a price we can afford.

Because nothing will atually happen until they start using all their channels, including their lobbyists and Government Computing to educate their current and potential departmental customers, including ministers, advisors and oppostion in new, more effective and sustainable (including profitable to them and their shareholders, our pension funds) of working.

I’d like to see progress well before I’m a frail eighty year old dependent on the uncertain charity of public services akin to those in current prospect – let alone the horrors than some of you technophiliacs are proposing.

I would like to see the CIOs pushing for, and engaging with, a WELL-INFORMED public debate about the use of ICT in the public sector. I am sure others can express this more coherently, but one of the top 10 Wibbies for John Suffolk should be to continuously engage and inform the general public: take on and challenge their views, allow them to challenge in return, and to actively address the risk that cynicism stifles informed debate.

As an example of how far short the current debate falls, here is my quick take on just one example.

The BBC is still widely regarded as one of the best, and most balanced news organisations in the world. It is certainly one of the best funded (by us), and I think most would agree that it has a huge influence on public perceptions.

Lets see how the BBC cover the national programme in the NHS – the biggest current public sector ICT programme, which affects us all, which we all pay for, and which has its problems, but received a broadly positive assessment from the NAO. (it’s not worth troubling about how the Mail, etc, report this).

I have just Googled the BBC web site for “NHS +IT” and got 1,370 results. The first 20 headlines are listed below.

On a quick (and not terribly scientific) count, I make it 15 negative / critical reports, 3 neutral / factual reports and 2 positive reports. My “positives” are not all that positive:

Little delay’ to NHS IT upgrade: The upgrading of NHS computers will not be delayed “significantly” despite a firm pulling out of work, the government says.
Services back after NHS IT crash: Computer services are being restored to 80 NHS trusts following a massive IT failure on Sunday.

Is this a fair and balanced view of how the programme is going? I have only anecdotal evidence, but I suspect that most of the public would now regard the National programme as (a) a failure, (b) massively over budget, (c) possibly never to be completed (d) a waste of money. But I suspect most informed commentators would regard it as (a) a qualified success, (b) broadly on budget, (c) behind schedule (d) essential for a modern NHS

Such a gap in perception prevents any rational debate about important aspects of the programme – aspects that affect us all.

It is not the BBC’s job to shape the debate, they are just a communication channel (but one that, IMHO, is currently inhibiting informed debate rather than supporting it).

We should not accept that this is inevitable. One of the top 10 Wibbies for John Suffolk should be to continuously engage and inform the general public: take on and challenge their views, allow them to challenge in return, and to actively address the risk that cynicism stifles informed debate.

Continuously – not just throughout the life of major projects – and certainly not just as a reaction when things go pear-shaped.

How to do this?

Well, like anything else, just because it’s difficult doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be attempted.

Here is my list of BBC headlines re NPfIT…

1. Major NHS IT upgrade hit by delay: Key parts of the £6.8bn NHS IT upgrade in England are falling behind schedule, a funding watchdog says.

2. Little delay’ to NHS IT upgrade: The upgrading of NHS computers will not be delayed “significantly” despite a firm pulling out of work, the government says.

3. NHS IT upgrade success ‘at risk’: A £6.2bn IT revolution of the NHS is at risk of failing because staff feel demoralised about the project.

4. Concern over NHS IT ‘glitches’:Fresh concerns are raised over the £6.8bn upgrade after it emerged there were 110 glitches in the last four months.

5. Inquiry call into NHS IT project: An MP calls for an inquiry into a £6bn NHS computer programme after a firm pulled out of the project.

6. Call for review of NHS IT upgrade: The £6.2bn upgrade of the NHS IT system needs to be independently investigated, computer scientists say.

7. New inquiry into NHS IT upgrade: Financial auditors are to launch another inquiry into the £6.8bn NHS IT upgrade project.

8. Warning of major NHS IT overspend: The final cost of modernising NHS IT systems could reach £31bn – five times the declared figure, a report says.

9. Services back after NHS IT crash: Computer services are being restored to 80 NHS trusts following a massive IT failure on Sunday.

10.Opt-out right for NHS IT databasePatients are to be given the right to opt out of having information stored on the NHS electronic database.

11.NHS report ‘criticisms deleted’A report into the £6.8bn NHS IT upgrade had criticisms removed and watered-down before publication, the BBC learns.

12.NHS computer system probedHe said: “Given this is the largest IT project in the history of the NHS, and in view of problems with NHS IT systems in the past, this investigation seems …

13.GPs dissatisfied with IT systemKEY PARTS OF NHS IT UPGRADE. Choose and book – A system to allow patients to book hospital … Call for review of NHS IT upgrade 10 Apr 06 | Health …

14.Privacy fears over NHS databaseRichard Granger, director general for NHS IT, said the scheme was more secure than the old paper … Opt-out right for NHS IT database 14 Jan 05 | Health …

15.Q&A: NHS privacy fears: The database, which is being installed as part of the NHS’s IT upgrade, is designed to allow … Opt-out right for NHS IT database Doctors concerned over e-recordsMajor NHS IT upgrade hit by delay 16 Jun 06

16.Connecting for Health: A National Audit Office report into the huge NHS IT programme had criticisms watered-down or deleted.

17.Gates to partner NHS on IT: Microsoft chairman Bill Gates is taking part in an NHS IT conference on Thursday, …

18.Risk fears on NHS computer schemeEngland’s: NHS IT upgrade holds clinical risks but the system will cut the dangers of wrong prescriptions, MPs are told.

19.GPs dissatisfied with IT system: RELATED TO THIS STORY: Missed hospital appointments ‘up’ (08 May 06 | Health ) Call for review of NHS IT upgrade Doctor IT upgrade support ‘falls’The £6.2bn overhaul of the NHS IT system could be undermined by declining support among doctors, a survey says.

20.Accenture quits £1.9bn NHS deal: SEE ALSO. Concern over NHS IT ‘glitches’ 18 Sep 06 | Health. Troubled iSoft hit by £344m loss 25 Aug 06 | Business. ISoft uncovers accounting errors …

Here’s what I said when asked in July what I’d like to see in the annual report:

– What are most recent and historical usage figures (how much they are used) for Directgov, the Knowledge Network and the Government Gateway? Also, what are the plans for future development, especially for the Gateway?

– Since the TG strategy was published, what challenges have arisen in its implementation, and what action is being taken to deal with them?

– Do you have any firm measures of success for the strategy in terms of improved public services?

– What action has been taken to move the professionalism agenda forward?

– Can you identify whether the individual parts of the TG implementation plan are on schedule?

We seem to have stakeholder engagement pretty well covered.

Here, briefly, are two more:

1. Encourage innovation – create a climate where risk taking is encouraged, supported and rewarded

2. Accelerate adoption of successful innovation

First, I’d really like to second Tom Steinberg’s number 3, in comment 6 above.

Secondly, I think some sort of centralised good-practice guidance / support should be available for those running public-facing websites for Government Departments and Local Government. Given the poor quality and lack of good practice in many websites, it seems that there should be someone to turn to for advice, or better still a body which would be proactive in helping departments, and perhaps even be required to vet all new website proposals.

Ideally I’d like to see an enforced policy for all government websites — covering accessibility and other best-practices (eg human readable URLs, persistence of URLs, provision of redirects, valid markup, use of gov.uk domain rather than .com etc for official stuff, PAS 78, usability testing, etc). All new sites / redesigns would have to comply, and current sites not in compliance would need to publish an action plan for the improvement process.

Finally, I think some positive action towards using open standards and formats where-ever possible would be a good thing.

I hate to be picky, but “Britain is the last 1940s, Stalinist centralised bureaucracy” could be a tad overstating things.

[b]Types of Systems:[/b]
– Buy systems which “do the job” as simply as possible: Avoid projects which aim to “send a signal” or try to be the “envy of the world.”

– Identify which (few) systems really must work 24/7; Ensure that they really do; Relax the specifications on the others.

– Encourage procurement of modest, flexible, scalable, modular systems which have well defined, open interfaces.

[b]User Interfaces:[/b]
– Systems must suit the intended users: For example, the HMRC on-line corporation tax service should be re-designed to suit non-specialists such as owners of small businesses, rather than just specialist tax accountants.

– The commercial world will always progress faster than specialist government systems: Aim to design systems and user interfaces where reliable government information can be provided securely alongside or in concert with commercial services (eg. Google Maps).

– Provide proper decision support if users have to make a decision: eg. NHS “Choose & Book,” find a new GP, find a new dentist etc.: Relevant information on all options should be summarised side-by-side on one or a small number of screens: Users shouldn’t have to “drill-down” into each option in turn, just to find the basic information.

– Harness the “wisdom of crowds”: Where people have to choose a service, allow them to view the comments of previous users (good and bad) – that’s how many people now choose books, music and holidays; why not also schools, hospitals, dentists etc.?

Scrap the useless “Transport Direct” service! Commission something that provides accurate relevant information.

I’ll echo the cry for User Interface improvements. Some Government sites have clearly spent a lot of effort on accessibility – they should be copied. In fact, I would recommend a quality assurance mark if a site has gone through focus group assessment. In addition to W3C standards I envisage guidelines on things like:

– number of clicks to get to desired information;
– Fogg factor on complexity of language;
– usability for visually impaired – with a special setting (The RNIB might like to be commissioned for this);
– Routes to getting services;
– Feedback on progress of requests;
– A telephone line to help out if stuck;
– ability to pause a transaction through a time-out.

Remember that a lot people we are trying to reach may be old or physically impaired. They don’t have eagle eyes and may have difficulty using a mouse. Good design helps with all these things, without detracting from the experience of others.

It is great to see John Suffolk looking for external input to his very important task.

As far as I can see, Suffolk and the EGU have a primarily influencing role, even within the policy-setting context – as policies emanating from Cabinet Office often do not meet with much support out there amongst ministries and agencies, let alone amongst local adminstrations.

As a small entitiy with very wide scope but almost zero power or budget – and relatively little support outside the Cabinet Office- Suffolk can make most difference by picking a few big issues where new ideas and forceful advocacy can make a difference.

There are two areas to influence: top level governance and purpose; and technology policy. These two areas require totally different approaches … so I’d suggest that a deputy deals with technology policy.

My wish-list is as follows:

1. Recognition that a huge amount remains to be done to win the hearts and minds of top public servants to real transformation – in order to be far more customer-centric and cost effective.

2. A vision and an influencing plan aimed at the top … part of which perhaps should involve the full integration of the EGU (still as a separate part) inside a government change programme with PM blessing. This is clearly outside Suffolk’s gift … but sets ambitions.

3. A commitment to speaking out on the big information and technology issues. For instance: are the Home Office’s ID plans feasible and proportional to the benefit? Should the government be doing any mega-IT projects?

4. I don’t see that the EGU has a direct role or any direct remit on service delivery. But Suffolk could influence delivery outcomes by firmly reiterating best practice and publishing an annual report on top projects, which praised and shamed. Openness here is vital. Shaming should be about poor management practice, not failure per se … you dont get innovation without failure.

5. Roadmap to mandated common infrastructure rules across the entire public sector.

Honest appraisals of success and failure. (Remember the Yes Minister suggestion that you set the criteria – which if not met, meant failure – publicly in advance.)

At the moment, enormous efforts go into attempted justifications and claims of success (cf some of the local e-gov National Projects) which conceal lessons that would be valuable to others.

Being a very one-issue person, I thought that I’d introduce accessibility into the discussion, only to find that it’s already there!

I do need to add/amend one thing though – accessibility isn’t just about websites, and doesn’t only apply to public facing user interfaces. As has been said, systems must suit intended users, who are citizens, service users and employees. IR systems are used by taxpayers and accountants, but also by IR employees.

Wibbi: accessible and usable software, web and other interface design are mandated in the procurement process, as required by the DDA disability equality duty for all public sector ICT. Wibbi: this requirement is managed by an overarching public authority, rather than expecting each central and local government department and agency to invent its own accessible ICT procurement policies and processes.

I know just the people to support this activity: see http://www.rnib.org.uk/softwareaccesscentre

There is no obvious reason why there should be a single IT “strategy” for the whole of government. Didn’t that sort of thing go out with the fall
of the Berlin Wall?

How about:

From today every public-service project will be based on customer involvement from the start, in design, decision, development, monitoring and feedback stages. We’ll freeze any project that didnt involve customers fro the start, and review urgently what they actually wanted.

We’ll default to making any information the public has paid for free and openly available using standard formats and APIs.

Full openness and transparency about contracts and costs will be the norm for public sector contracts in future. Level playing field – same applies to all.

We’ll presume that any software paid from public funds will be placed in a public-sector SourceForge, reusable by any other public service under creative commons.

We’ll apply a principle of maximal anonymity to any transaction involving personal data.

Yet another for my wibbi list. It relates to my identity management hobby horse. http://www.idealgovernment.com/index.php/weblog/multiple_identifiers_are_inevitable/ . Theoretical constructs need to be followed up with practical software and systems. Both empirical evidence and theory prove the impracticality of giving every person a unique identifier (UID) that can be used across all computer systems for all time. People are unique, not the UIDs dished out by agencies to assist with their business systems. The UID mindset creates projects that fail to deliver benefits to citizens, and wastes resources. We need a better solution than vendors are offering to support multi-agency information sharing.

It would be better if someone took up the challenge to build a prototype federated persistent identity engine (PIE). The features are:
•Contribution from any agency;
•Any number of aliases and identity tags tracked for all time;
•Assertions of identity equivalence, by automatic and manual means;
•Every identity ranked against all probable related identities;
•Source of all identities recorded with date stamp and source system computer ID;
•Any identity schema stored, including unstructured identity strings, mapped by a time-stamped metadata dictionary;
•Accessible as a web service from any compliant application systems;
•Continuous improvement of identity mapping;
•Cognisant of guidance from Kim Cameron’s Laws of identity and the Higgins project;
•Authentication of users by identity, role, consent of agencies and possibly consent of data subjects;
•Compliant with all data protection and privacy legislation.
•Scalable to any size and time dimension in conformance with ISO 18876;
•Speed and ease of Google when accessed from a browser;

Yes, it would be big. But it can start small and grow. It should be open source . It needs a community that will contribute to improvement.

Blog #12 called for innovation. A candidate PIE architecture has been completed. Building it would be an innovative research project. Perhaps it could cooperate with Higgins. Some things would work well, some would fail, but more knowledge would be spread in the public sector. It could help people specify requirements for identity management in future Multi-Agency integrations, such as the Common Assessment Framework for Children.

After testing in a computer science research lab, field trials are needed with a partnership drawn from independent agencies. It needs to operate over shared public service infrastructure, such as Government Connect.

Does anybody want to volunteer to make a prototype PIE?

The P.I.E. proposal is interesting but also worrying: Potentially, it gives government even more power over ordinary people.

Modern IT systems (and bottomless pockets – our pockets!) make all sorts of logging, monitoring, spying etc. possible.

Most weeks, the government announces yet another database for tracking some aspect of our lives. Do we really want these? Do we really want these all linked together?

Modern governments need to learn self-control and learn to ignore the persistent voices of lobby groups and the Media who call for ever tighter regulation over people’s lives when, following even the most unusual, tragic events: [b]“Something must be done!”[/b]

When I report a faulty street light to my local council, they demand my name, address and phone number. OK, if there’s confusion and they need to check its location again, but it’s obvious that their computer screen also displays other fault reports that I’ve made in the past.

Why should such a routine transaction need “strong identity” or “persistent identity” or to be linked in any way with any other records about me, my phone number, my address, or my computer?

Modern IT is crucial to the delivery of policy: IT policy is therefore linked very closely to political policy. [b]The government’s CIO should “educate” government about the appropriate use of IT.[/b] If not the CIO, who else can do that?

Spot on Richard S. But is that how the CIO sees his relationship to his political masters? And is that how they see it? Or is the CIo being used – belatedly – as Trojan Horse to push through eminently sensible and long overdue business process changes?

I’m not sure I sense an appetite for learning what the underlying implictions of this technology are, or for exploring what intentions certain apparently sraightforward and logical actions (such as centralised databases, data sharing) betray.

Anyway, I guess I’m straying off topic for this thread which is “what do we want John Suffolk to say”. I guess one answer is “I shall educate the PM and the Cabinet about the implications of these technologies so they’re more fully aware of the choices available and longer term consequences of decisions they are taking. These materials used for this education will be opnely published, so people know what our political leaders no understand about ht ee-enabled society we’re moving into.” Does that do it?

My first post was: Educate.

My PIE, being federable or federated, takes authentication and consent to the highest possible level. This is a vital part of the debate. The time-stamped metadata directory must have the consent rules for access. The underlying default logic must be prevent exposure of ID indexes without specifying context, roles and reasons for a join. Index owners should be able to audit accessors.

The learning point is that it is better to have something good and turn off facilities, rather than battle on with failing integration strategies. At the moment I have not seen an implementation of a good solution.

Procedural note:

What I plan to do with this lot is this:
….when the thread slows to a stop
– print it all out
– snip it into single points
– group them together
– try to express the biggest ones in the format required (ie what we’d like to hear the CIO say)
– convey this back to the CIO (date format TBA)

but there’s still a lot we havent heard I think. I wonder what local government wants to hear from CIOS, and the major suppliers.

An apology: My post # 23 appeared to criticise Lance Piper’s proposal for a Persistent Identity Engine (PIE).

I did not intend to criticise Lance’s PIE. Sorry Lance.

I was trying to suggest that some trivial interactions between government and governed do not need to be recorded for posterity; that attempting to record them could be counter-productive; that governments love to record things!

An extreme example: If I had to produce my ID card when reporting a faulty street light, I’d almost certainly leave the reporting to someone else!

Apology accepted. You are right about opposing high levels of authentication to report trivial events. The 101 project, fortunately, does not need anything other than a phone call and 10p. Kim Cameron’s laws are reasonable starting point for assessing the level of identity exposure needed.

PS Why does your name link to a URL for Hemyock Castle?

Lance: An Englishman’s home is …

Sir William Asthorpe was granted the “[url=http://www.hemyockcastle.co.uk/licence.htm]licence to crenellate[/url]” ie. fortify Hemyock Castle on [b]5th November[/b] 1380: Each year, the whole country celebrates with fireworks!

As Lord Chief Justice, [url=http://www.hemyockcastle.co.uk/famous2.htm#popham]a later owner sentenced Guy Fawkes to death[/url].
—

What does history teach us about Identity during times of national tension?

Sir William Asthorpe was illegitimate; his Father is not known; his name was made up. However, his qualities carried him far; trusted by two kings.

His knighthood and coat of arms, awarded during the ghastly “Hundred Years War,” were symbols of his [b]allegiance[/b] rather than proof of his identity.

Do modern electronic “identity” schemes try to assert “allegiance”?

– Allegiance to a country and its laws would seem central to the “war against terrorism.”

– Allegiance to an organisation would seem important for any company ID.

– When dealing with officials and official web-sites; I need to know their allegiance and status rather than their personal identity.

For example: When a courier arrives, the livery of their van and uniform are more significant than the name or photo on their ID card.