US election likely to be a missed opportunity to advance digital ID policy
The 2024 U.S. election represents an opportunity for social dialogue around digital identity policy in the wake of a series of revelations about fraud and rumors about election integrity. The opportunity could easily slip away, however, without the right combination of circumstances and leadership, International Biometrics + Identity Association (IBIA) Managing Director Robert Tappan tells Biometric Update in an interview.
Even before war in the Middle East expanded, and a major hurricane left thousands of American homeless and millions with power outages and substantial property damage, neither Presidential candidate had offered any significant policy position on digital ID within their platforms. The situation was discussed among a panel moderated by Tappan at Identity Week, which offered a sobering account of diverging congressional interests, and the observation by National Journal Editor-in-Chief Jeff Dufour that the government “only responds to crisis.”
Tappan notes that even among groups that may seem at first blush to be internally aligned, like privacy advocates, there are divisions of opinion on how digital identity should work. These groups also appear to be at odds with technology providers.
There are some points of agreement, however, that could serve as starting points in productive social dialogue, and eventually government policy.
“The consensus among our IBIA Members is that the most effective and judicious approach to comprehensive legislation and regulation surrounding digital ID is consistent with our positions regarding those around data privacy as well as biometric technologies and other aspects of identity management,” Tappan wrote in a subsequent email. That legislation should be a federal, nationwide approach which preempts individual state and local laws, avoiding the cost and confusion around “the patchwork of state-based approaches to regulating privacy, PII and identity issues.”
“In addition, the anticipated costs of state-by-state compliance and the threat of litigation, especially frivolous lawsuits, are both significant barriers and huge deterrents to business and growth in the nation’s economy,” he says.
A growing chorus
Non-governmental organizations focused on U.S. public policy like Mitre and the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) have come out clearly in support of digital identity for Americans.
Mitre makes the case that the time is right to act on digital identity in a summary of a trio of presidential transition workshops held at the 2024 FedID Conference.
A paper on interoperable digital identities argues that their adoption can increase gross domestic product and reduce cybercrime. Public education is necessary, however, as this is not widely understood. Tappan echoes that sentiment.
Mitre would like to see both public and private sector options available for logins to government systems like the IRS’ online platform.
The group also notes the failure of the Digital Identity Act, and that a commitment from the White House to make a policy announcement in the area remains unfulfilled.
The ITIF reviews the progress and challenges of state mobile driver’s license programs, what other countries have done, and argues for the benefits of digital identity.
The ITIF believes “the federal government should coordinate a nationwide effort to promote digital ID development, implementation, and use.”
Many cats to herd
Tappan describes the divisions between identity providers and big tech platforms, and between privacy advocates who fear digital ID and those who fear its lack, as representative of a fragmented ecosystem. Any coordinated action will require “herding a lot of cats.”
That could lead to the kind of glacial adoption pace set by the REAL ID program, he warns.
Like the ITIF, Tappan sees the patchwork of state efforts as more of a barrier than a path to universal adoption of digital ID in America. The situation, he says, is “not gridlock, it’s chaos.”
If federal government action is coming, however, it will “most likely will be taken up substantively after the election is over and under a new presidential administration,” he says. “In order to secure presidential leadership on the digital ID issue, though, it will require all of the tools of social dialogue — securing political support (thereby creating a mandate), coalition-building and recruiting allies, conducting public education and media outreach to consumers and lawmakers alike.”
Tappan is skeptical that election integrity concerns will provide a significant impetus to strengthen the nation’s identity ecosystem.
There are some positive developments for digital ID from the U.S. government, though, that could help set up future progress.
The Biden Administration began trying to establish guard rails and best practices for some of the underlying technology, for instance with its Executive Order on policing which resulted in the NAS report and subsequent meetings. Those efforts have not stalled, at least in part for reasons beyond the control of any one individual or group, Tappan notes.
Whoever the next President is, someone, perhaps a person or group within the Department of Commerce or State, needs to take the lead if any viable legislation is to be taken up. If that does happen, a process that includes civil society and technology developers can help to increase the level of understanding among policy and lawmakers to the point where agreement can be reached.
Tappan identifies three themes that stakeholders should prioritize in communicating the need for digital ID.
“The need to achieve ‘critical mass’ in digital ID means encouraging its timely, widespread adoption on both the user-side (individuals/consumers) as well as the channel-side (i.e., banking/finance, credit/mortgage lending, utilities, telecom providers, etc.) of the ecosystem,” he writes.
Stakeholders should push for the establishment of “a national, uniform regulatory standard that everyone in the ecosystem can follow and comply with.”
They should also “emphasize the point that including biometric information to the digital ID mix — at the outset — is a true value-add.”
The banking industry may be uniquely positioned among the private sector to spur the adoption of digital identity. Otherwise, leadership is more likely in Tappan’s estimation to come from a new departmental secretary or an inter-governmental committee.
He is hopeful. But he is not holding his breath.
Article Topics
digital ID | digital identity | elections | IBIA | ITIF | legislation | U.S. Government | United States
Comments