This position was achieved as such large part of bank customers were using pre-Internet versions of PC e-banking (launched in 1982 for private and SME customers).
Unfortunately we have not been able to keep the position. But one important achievement for secure public sector e-services is that you can use your bank log-in codes – as preferred by citizens (familiar and secure) and tax payers (by far most cost-efficient solution around). Good feature is also that these codes can be had also by citizens who for some reason do not have a bank account.
Posts
5 comments:
Preferred is quite a strong expression when the reality is that there has not been viable options.
Perhaps in the future individual's identity is something that is owned by the individual itself and confirmed by multiple parties (in some instances by bank, other a telecom operator and third a service provider such as Google).
In many cases, identity is something that needs to be as wide as the internet, not restricted to some local legal area.
I find the OpenID initiative (openid.net) really interesting. For example, what if my Google ID was validated by local authorities so I could use it also towards governmental agencies?
I find it more important to save tax payers' money and offer an alternative that citizens prefer. We did offer also smart cards as an alternative in Nordea Sweden - but customers did not take them - one-time code preferred.
As to not restricting to area the EU policy is to let areas join in federative model - so you can use your local strong e-id across the EU-e-id network. My hope is that we can create a network where the strong e-id can also be used when a weaker one is sufficient - just for convenience sake.
The most important aspect is to be sure that the attaching of the tool to an individual is a regulated progress. Otherwise we will have the weakest link syndrom.
Kotilainen is wrong in saying that there has not been options. The Finnish public sector spent some 50m on the citizens smart card attempt.. Was it viable? We did not think so - and turned out to be right - citizens preferred the already familiar tools.
What is wrong with economy of repetition, economy of reuse, scope and scale? Saving tax payer's money.
Post a Comment