Tuesday 22 October 2013

1st cloud in Skyscape Cloud's sky

Readers will remember the immaculate conception of Skyscape Cloud Services Ltd, the company incorporated on 3 May 2011 which won four government contracts, some of them before the company had submitted its first set of accounts to Companies House.

The Government Digital Service (GDS), HMRC, the MOD and the Home Office all chose Skyscape in preference to long-established cloud services companies.

Now GDS have parked their harp on another cloud.

Government signs cloud hosting contract with Carrenza for GOV.UK, they tell us in ComputerWorldUK magazine:
The Government Digital Service (GDS) has signed a £100,000, one-year contract with Carrenza to help host the GOV.UK goverment services portal ... The infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS) contract was awarded via the government's G-Cloud framework ... Carrenza replaces previous suppliers Skyscape and SCC, which provided hosting for GOV.UK over the last 12 months.
And Carrenza have issued a press release:
Carrenza, the award winning UK based cloud services provider, today announced that it had signed a contract with the Government Digital Service (GDS) to be one of the primary suppliers hosting GOV.UK. The Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) contract was awarded via the G-Cloud iii Framework, created to deliver fundamental changes in the way the public sector procures and operates ICT.
Will HMRC, the MOD and the Home Office follow suit?

1st cloud in Skyscape Cloud's sky

Readers will remember the immaculate conception of Skyscape Cloud Services Ltd, the company incorporated on 3 May 2011 which won four government contracts, some of them before the company had submitted its first set of accounts to Companies House.

The Government Digital Service (GDS), HMRC, the MOD and the Home Office all chose Skyscape in preference to long-established cloud services companies.

Now GDS have parked their harp on another cloud.

Sunday 20 October 2013

GDS and the Electoral Commission

Have you recently received your voter registration form?

If so, you may have noticed that, depending on where you live, you can now register on-line via www.elecreg.co.uk. This website is operated by a company called Halarose Ltd, who have contracts with 80 UK local authorities to provide "democracy through technology", as they call it.

The briefest of investigations on the Companies House website suggests that Halarose has a paid-up share capital of 9¼ pence, which looks like the start of an interesting story, but that's not why we're here today.

What follows in this paragraph and the next would be correct if NSLOOKUP was correct ... NSLOOKUP suggests that the IP address of www.elecreg.co.uk is 54.247.162.156 and if you look that up on RIPE you draw a blank. Which is odd, because RIPE is where you'd expect to be able to find the details of a European website.

... but NSLOOKUP isn't correct so, in the event, there's no UK-electoral-rolls-stored-in-the-US story here ... But the electoral rolls of these 80 UK local authorities aren't being stored in Europe. They're being stored in the US, on Amazon servers, according to ARIN, the Regional Internet Registry for North America. That looks like the start of another interesting story but, again, that's not why we're here today. ... please see update below 

"You do not have to vote", it says on the back of the form, "but by law you have to give us the information we ask for in this form". It is now a legal requirement to register. That's all to do with the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013. Interesting. But not why we're here today.

"Important information about how you register to vote", it says on an accompanying sheet of paper, which mentions individual electoral registration (IER), can be found if you trot along to http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/voter-registration/individual-electoral-registration. Don't bother. You get "Page not found". Boring. And not why we're here today.

That's four topics we're not interested in just at the moment. And there's a fifth. The password – or "security code" as they call it – to log on to www.elecreg.co.uk is printed in plaintext for all to see at the top right corner of the voter registration form. Bad practice, securitywise. To put it mildly. But that's still not why we're here today ...

Working with GDS
... no, the object of interest today is GDS, the Government Digital Service, the "elite team of digital experts" as the Guardian called them, tucked away in the Cabinet Office, where they have "sparked a radical shake-up in the way the government does its business".

"Some of the UK's best designers and developers" are working at GDS according to the Guardian and they have a lot to teach Whitehall. They are busy producing 25 exemplars, and in GDS's own words:
We are running this programme of continual iteration in the open. You can follow our progress at www.gov.uk/transformation, where we’re regularly publishing information about every exemplar. You’ll see performance data, screenshots and status reports of where each service is at, and we’re going to add more to it as each service progresses ...

It’s important that we continue to publish these updates in public, that we report on the services we’re transforming, and that we blog about our progress. Publishing this means more of our colleagues can see what’s happening and what part they play in the process. It’s also the best way to make sure that we’re accountable for the things we build. As our design principles say, if we make things open, we make things better.
Exemplar #1 is devoted to IER and, it's odd, but the development of this exemplar isn't open, you can't follow GDS's progress, there's no performance data, there are no screenshots, there's no status report and you have no idea how GDS are transforming the electoral registration service, which makes it hard to hold them to account and hard to know if they're making things better.

But then, you're just the public.

The Electoral Commission are a different kettle of fish. They've had the pleasure of working with GDS on two pilot exercises to see if matching electoral roll data against the National Insurance Number database, and other databases, would make it easier to compile a complete and accurate roll.

Back to the Electoral Commission website.

In their July 2013 report on the second data-matching/data-mining pilot, they say (p.2 onwards):
• There were considerable delays to the original timetable for establishing this pilot. A significant cause of the delays was the lack of capacity and resources within Cabinet Office (and the Government Digital Service (GDS), which is part of Cabinet Office) due to their workload related to the transition to IER ...

• For the national data mining, Cabinet Office’s original intention was that pilot areas should adopt a fairly standardised approach to checking the data received and contacting the individuals identified, to ensure that results were comparable. In practice, however, the nature and extent of follow up work varied widely.

• Much of this variation was caused by practical difficulties, for example the need to spend more time than expected in ensuring the accuracy of the data received. However, some of the variation could have been avoided if there had been fewer delays and a greater level of support provided by Cabinet Office to pilot areas. In particular, a few areas told us they felt unsupported and were unclear about what to do ...

• It is not possible to produce an overall figure for the cost of this pilot. This is because we do not have final costs for all pilot areas or any costs for Cabinet Office (including GDS), who conducted much of the work.

• We are also therefore unable to estimate the cost per new elector registered or the likely cost of any national rollout. Any estimates of these would need to include the cost of coordinating and managing the pilot (the role taken by Cabinet Office in this pilot), as any future work with data mining would require some form of central coordination ...

• The reasons that so many existing electors and ineligible individuals were returned on the data include poor data specifications from Cabinet Office ...

• Inconsistent address formatting and incomplete addresses are likely to have contributed to the significant numbers of existing electors returned in the data (Cabinet Office could not provide the data which would have allowed for a definitive assessment) ...

• In order to answer this question [Is data mining a cost effective way of registering new electors?], we would need to assess the cost benefit of data mining by, for example, calculating the cost per new elector registered. However, we are unable to do this as Cabinet Office could not provide details of their expenditure on the pilot. As they managed the process and conducted much of the matching and data processing, their costs could be significant and are crucial in reaching any realistic assessment of cost effectiveness ...

– The addresses appeared to be more complete than those held in other national databases but a poor data specification from Cabinet Office meant that the format was inconsistent ...

The findings from this pilot do not justify the national roll out of data mining ...

In addition, there were numerous issues in this pilot with the communication and support provided by Cabinet Office ...

Cabinet Office need to ensure that they maintain good communication between themselves, the data holding organisations and EROs [electoral registration officers] throughout the process, including after data from the national databases has been returned to EROs ...
Four professors, as we have already seen, found GDS's performance to be less than exemplary. Now GDS have lost the Electoral Commission's vote. And along the way, Francis Maude's faith in data-matching has been undermined. That voter registration form that landed on your doormat has a weighty story to tell.

----------
Update 21 October 2013
Halarose contacted DMossEsq today and asserted that, contrary to the suggestion in the post above, their UK electoral registration service is hosted in the EU, as it is legally required to be, and not in the US.

Normal people will fall asleep reading the following paragraphs but as long as they wake up understanding that DMossEsq accepts Halarose's assertion and that this update is intended to make amends for his mistake, then all will be well.

How did the mistake arise?

Let's take it that RIPE and ARIN are correct and that 54.247.162.156 is the IP address of a website on some Amazon server in the US. Why did DMossEsq think that it was the IP address of http://www.elecreg.co.uk?

Ask most responsible adults how you find out what the IP address of a website is and they'll head for the door.

Quite right, too.

Of the remainder, some will say "PING it" and others "use NSLOOKUP". If you enter "PING www.elecreg.co.uk" or "NSLOOKUP www.elecreg.co.uk" at the command prompt, you'll be told that the IP address is 54.247.162.156. Try it. You'll see. DMossEsq didn't make the whole thing up.

The trouble is that PING and NSLOOKUP are wrong.

If you browse www.elecreg.co.uk and you use Chrome to "View page info", then click on the "Connection" tab, then click on "Certificate information", then click on the "Details" tab and then click on the "Subject Alternative Name" field, you'll find that there are eight names for the certified website – electorregistration.co.uk, www.electorregistration.co.uk, www.elecreg.co.uk, www.herainteractive.co.uk, www.halarosews.co.uk, elecreg.co.uk, herainteractive.co.uk and halarosews.co.uk.

PING all eight names, and eight times you're told that the IP address is 54.247.162.156. Ditto if you use NSLOOKUP. Now you've got 16 pieces of evidence pointing one way and one communication from Halarose pointing the other.

So you look for an alternative to PING and NSLOOKUP. And you find NetworkSolutions. And what do they say?

They say that:
  • the IP address of both elecreg.co.uk and www.elecreg.co.uk is 213.166.13.58
  • the IP address of both electorregistration.co.uk and www.electorregistration.co.uk is 213.166.13.40
  • the IP address of herainteractive.co.uk, www.herainteractive.co.uk, halarosews.co.uk and www.halarosews.co.uk, all four of them, is our old friend 54.247.162.156, in the US
Check 213.166.13.58 and 213.166.13.40 on RIPE and you find that they are both in Europe.

Given that NetworkSolutions can, why can't PING and NSLOOKUP get their IP addresses right? No idea. Infuriating.

Updated 23.11.13:

GDS continue to provide IER with all the help they can, see Reaching all our users:
Our project is aimed at around 47 million people who are eligible to vote in UK elections ... I put up two large, colourful banners to attract attention.

GDS and the Electoral Commission

Have you recently received your voter registration form?

If so, you may have noticed that, depending on where you live, you can now register on-line via www.elecreg.co.uk. This website is operated by a company called Halarose Ltd, who have contracts with 80 UK local authorities to provide "democracy through technology", as they call it.

The briefest of investigations on the Companies House website suggests that Halarose has a paid-up share capital of 9¼ pence, which looks like the start of an interesting story, but that's not why we're here today.

What follows in this paragraph and the next would be correct if NSLOOKUP was correct ... NSLOOKUP suggests that the IP address of www.elecreg.co.uk is 54.247.162.156 and if you look that up on RIPE you draw a blank. Which is odd, because RIPE is where you'd expect to be able to find the details of a European website.

... but NSLOOKUP isn't correct so, in the event, there's no UK-electoral-rolls-stored-in-the-US story here ... But the electoral rolls of these 80 UK local authorities aren't being stored in Europe. They're being stored in the US, on Amazon servers, according to ARIN, the Regional Internet Registry for North America. That looks like the start of another interesting story but, again, that's not why we're here today. ... please see update below 

Tuesday 8 October 2013

Identity assurance, GDS and HMRC – the tension mounts

Here in the UK, this month is Identity Assurance Month. This is the month that the Government Digital Service have to deliver.

It's the 8th of the month and there's no news. Will we soon be able to alter our tax codes on-line? The tension is mounting.

Are you starting to wilt?

Here's a little mental stimulation to divert you and keep you going.

Public Administration Matriculation Board


October 2013

120 minutes


Candidates should read the attached source document carefully
before attempting the following questions.


1
Ten years ago, according to the source document, many UK councils/local authorities “welcomed the benefits that online services would bring but equally they mistrusted data security, and feared the ‘big brother’ State”.

The mistrust and the fear still exist and the source document asks “how can councils and their partners allay citizens’ mistrust and fear of Big Brother that have been present for over a decade?”.

Answer the question.
10 marks

2
(a) “The only way is digital ...” – is that true?
1 mark

(b) “The vision of the European Union’s DG Connect is ‘to make every European digital’ ...” – so what?
1 mark

3
UK local authorities “have shifted from ‘doing more with less’ to the reality of ‘less with less’ and becoming ‘smarter’ ... it’s about smarter councils leading smarter places, and giving smarter citizens smarter spaces to shape smarter services with you”.

(a) Explain the connection between Lord Brown of Madingley, “more” and “less”.
2 marks

(b) Beginning with the Hayes Smartmodem, trace the history and success of the word “smart” and its cognates as a marketing device over the past 32 years.
5 marks

(c) First we learn that “individuals will drive local councils’ digital transformation”, then it’s “smarter councils” who will be “leading smarter places”. Who is in the driving seat, the council/local authority or the individual/citizen?
2 marks

4
The more adventurous councils aren’t following Whitehall’s charge towards digital by default – they’ve overtaken it!

(a) In what sense is Whitehall charging towards digital-by-default?
1 mark

(b) The source document is published by Mydex, one of the nation’s eight “identity providers”. As such, Mydex is integral to the Government Digital Service’s Identity Assurance Programme which is in turn integral to digital-by-default. And to midata. Mydex are poking fun at GDS for being overtaken by “the more adventurous councils”. There was no need to do that. Why did they?
1 mark

(c) Will “the [smarter and] more adventurous councils” come to regret their early lead? Will all the stupid timid councils have the last laugh?
1 mark

5
Mydex is providing the super secure Personal Data Store (PDS) for identity verification that will take the [Wombwell] project to the next level and unlock a myriad of services for this previously off-line, ‘cash in hand’ community”.

Is there any such thing as a “super secure personal data store”?
5 marks

6
This can ultimately manage demand out of the service” – what does this mean?
2 marks

7
“How can councils and their partners allay citizens’ mistrust and fear of Big Brother that have been present for over a decade? ... One of the most effective ways is to be more open, and to give control over personal data back to individuals using personal data stores”.

How does storing your personal data on the web, in the cloud, with a third party you've never heard of, give you control over that data?
5 marks

8
(a) “A personal data store allows for automatic personalisation” – what does this mean? Note that the quotation is taken from the start of a paragraph by the end of which people are having to do their own personalisation, it’s stopped being automatic.
2 marks

(b) “It really changes how the future can be” – what doesn’t?
2 marks

9
Five times in the source document people are “empowered” by personal data stores. Or are they? Is power actually being relocated in the apps people will depend on? These apps will process the personal data that has been “permissioned” for sharing. Given that even members of the Zuckerberg family who work for the company can’t understand Facebook’s own permissioning system, what chance do the rest of us stand of understanding Mydex’s system? These apps will not be free – how much will dependency cost personal data store owners? These apps are meant to do the jobs currently done by human beings – are public servants inviting redundancy? What is the difference between downloading an app and downloading a virus?
10 marks

10
Imagine how powerful it would be if by 2020 the 16m people currently off-line or with low on-line skills had developed the digital confidence and trust in digital public services to permission the sharing of their personal data for councils”.

That’s one possible scenario. There are many others.

Briefly describe four more possible scenarios, taking the total to five.

Allocate a probability to each one, giving your reasons.

Under what circumstances would it be logical, businesslike and responsible for either central or local government to spend public money inveigling people and businesses into storing their data with companies they have no reason to trust, on the web, in the cloud, where it will be at the mercy of hackers, GCHQ and the NSA, among others?
20 marks

Identity assurance, GDS and HMRC – the tension mounts

Here in the UK, this month is Identity Assurance Month. This is the month that the Government Digital Service have to deliver.

It's the 8th of the month and there's no news. Will we soon be able to alter our tax codes on-line? The tension is mounting.

Are you starting to wilt?

Here's a little mental stimulation to divert you and keep you going.

Saturday 5 October 2013

Has anyone heard from the Home Secretary?

Communications Data Bill? Unnecessary. That was the question on the DMossEsq blog on 7 July 2013. And the answer. Judging by the Edward Snowden revelations, we don't need this Home Office Bill. The security services already have all the tools they need to try to keep us secure against terrorism, the Bill adds nothing.

Six days before, on 1 July 2013, the (London) Evening Standard published an article by John Kampfner which includes this: "Plans to introduce the Communications Data Bill or “snoopers’ charter” have been put on hold thanks to determined resistance by Nick Clegg and others ... Now we know they didn't really need the legislation – they've been doing it anyway, without bothering to recourse to the law".

It's not just Mr Kampfner and DMossEsq. Hugo Rifkind had an article in the Spectator the other day, 28 September 2013: "Six months ago we were tying ourselves in knots over the Snooper’s Charter – all about what invasive powers the state required into our digital data – and never was it admitted, even in passing, that our security services had the capacity to do all this stuff anyway, whether granted the new powers they desired or not".

So that's three of us. Including the son of Rt Hon Sir Malcolm Rifkind KCMG QC MP, the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

And d'you know what?

Not a word from the Home Secretary.

----------

Updated 6 October 2013
Communications Data Bill, June 2012, Foreword by the Home Secretary, "serious and growing risk":
... communications data from new technologies is less available and often harder to access. Without action there is a serious and growing risk that crimes enabled by email and the internet will go undetected and unpunished, that the vulnerable will not be protected and that terrorists and criminals will not be caught and prosecuted. 
Communications Data Bill, June 2012, Introduction, p.2, "neither feasible, necessary nor proportionate":
Nothing in these proposals will authorise the interception of the content of a communication. Nor will it require the collection of all internet data, which would be neither feasible, necessary nor proportionate.
A little deceitful?

Unpublished:
From: David Moss
Sent: 07 July 2013 01:15
To: 'dtletters@telegraph.co.uk'
Subject: Charles Moore, 5 July 2013, 'Edward Snowden is a traitor, just as surely as George Blake was'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/10162351/Edward-Snowden-is-a-traitor-just-as-surely-as-George-Blake-was.html

Sir

Charles Moore argues that everyone already knows that the security services intercept our communications to protect us against terrorism. For the past year, the Telegraph has reported on the Home Office's attempts to promote the Data Communications Bill, desperately needed according to Theresa May to protect us against terrorism. They can't both be right. Which is it?

Yours

David Moss

Unpublished:
From: David Moss
Sent: 01 October 2013 16:41
To: 'letters@thetimes.co.uk'
Subject: Kaya Burgess, 1 october 2013, MI5 playing into hands of ‘twerps like Assange’

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3883536.ece

Sir

We have it on the authority of Dame Stella Rimington that the security services can intercept any of our internet-based communications.

Two points.

Firstly, the implication is that there is no such thing as a secure website. Secure websites are like unicorns.

Second, the Home Office have been promoting the Communications Data Bill on the grounds that, unless we provide the security services with the tools, they can't defend us against terrorism. The implication was that they don't have the tools needed. As it turns out, they do, and the Home Office were deceiving us.

Yours

David Moss
Updated 7 October 2013
The GuardianCabinet was told nothing about GCHQ spying programmes, says Chris Huhne:
... Huhne also questioned whether the Home Office had deliberately misled parliament about the need for the communications data bill when GCHQ, the government's eavesdropping headquarters, already had remarkable and extensive snooping capabilities ...

"Throughout my time in parliament, the Home Office was trying to persuade politicians to invest in 'upgrading' Britain's capability to recover data showing who is emailing and phoning whom. Yet this seems to be exactly what GCHQ was already doing. Was the Home Office trying to mislead?

Has anyone heard from the Home Secretary?

Communications Data Bill? Unnecessary. That was the question on the DMossEsq blog on 7 July 2013. And the answer. Judging by the Edward Snowden revelations, we don't need this Home Office Bill. The security services already have all the tools they need to try to keep us secure against terrorism, the Bill adds nothing.

Six days before, on 1 July 2013, the (London) Evening Standard published an article by John Kampfner which includes this: "Plans to introduce the Communications Data Bill or “snoopers’ charter” have been put on hold thanks to determined resistance by Nick Clegg and others ... Now we know they didn't really need the legislation – they've been doing it anyway, without bothering to recourse to the law".

It's not just Mr Kampfner and DMossEsq. Hugo Rifkind had an article in the Spectator the other day, 28 September 2013: "Six months ago we were tying ourselves in knots over the Snooper’s Charter – all about what invasive powers the state required into our digital data – and never was it admitted, even in passing, that our security services had the capacity to do all this stuff anyway, whether granted the new powers they desired or not".

So that's three of us. Including the son of Rt Hon Sir Malcolm Rifkind KCMG QC MP, the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

And d'you know what?

GDS, agile PAYE on-line

This is the month when the Government Digital Service (GDS) have to deliver.

December 2012

PAYE Online
A new online service for taxpayers who use PAYE to pay tax via their employer. The service will allow individuals to get guidance and information on their tax code and to inform HMRC when they make a change that affects the amount of tax they pay ... (p.17)

IDA
The Digital Solutions Programme, together with the Government Digital Service, is developing an Identity Assurance (IDA) capability that can be re-used across all departmental and governmental services. The ID hub is based around the Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) standard and gives a route for government to utilise existing, trusted identity providers in the market. A pilot IDA service, using point in time verification (a necessary part of the PAYE online exemplar) to make things simple and easy for one-off transactions will be used in October 2013 with wider IDA capabilities becoming available from October 2014. The new IDA capability will replace the current Government Gateway authentication used by HMRC’s online services with customers being migrated from the Government Gateway in 2015 ... (p.17)

Addressing the user problem
Under PAYE Online, we are giving customers the ability to update information that helps us better calculate their tax code. We are starting with company cars and medical benefits in October 2013. (p.20)
We expected a prototype by the end of 2011, the first public services were due to be tested by February 2012 and live by the autumn of 2012. Nothing happened.

Then we expected it to be fully operational for 21 million people by 31 March 2013. Nothing happened.

Now, we must assume, at last, identity assurance (IDA) is going to see the light of day, this month, October 2013.

What will we see?

Go back to HMRC's December 2012 digital strategy.

HMRC want us PAYE taxpayers to be able to report to them on-line any changes to our circumstances which affect our tax codes.

Until this month, if you wanted to change your tax code, you had to ring HMRC or send them an email or a letter. Now, for benefits in kind, specifically company cars and medical insurance, you'll be able to fill in a form on-line. No more phone calls, emails or letters. That's the promise. "Digital by default", as they say.

Of course, HMRC need to know it's you and not someone else trying to vandalise your tax code by telling HMRC that you're receiving benefits in kind when really you're not. That's where the "trusted identity providers" mentioned by HMRC come in.

This service could be offered over the existing Government Gateway but, no, GDS and HMRC want to operate it on a new pan-government "ID hub".

Will IDA be a reality by 31 October 2013, a year after it was meant to be?

No.

It's still a "pilot service", it will have "wider" capabilities from October 2014 and it will be some time in 2015 before we're all weaned off the Government Gateway – arguably, three years after we were meant to be.

The "ID hub" is meant to offer anonymity. And an audit trail. How can it do both simultaneously? It can't. Will it be as secure as the Government Gateway? Given the daily diet of hacking stories in the press and the post-Snowden revelations about NSA and GCHQ surveillance, is there any such thing as a secure website? No. Given Whitehall's hunger to get their hands on our personal data, is there any chance of our privacy being maintained? No.

It looks, from the HMRC strategy document (and GDS's exemplar no.15), as though we should all have electronic IDs, from the "trusted identity providers in the market" of our choice, by the end of the month. What market? There isn't one. In what sense are these providers trusted? None.

Has anyone got one of these electronic IDs yet? There are only 26 days to go if the agile GDS are to meet their deadline. They're cutting it a bit fine.

"The first service to be delivered using identity assurance will be the Department for Work and Pensions' Universal Credits scheme", we were told back in September 2011. We believed that. It didn't happen.

Nothing to do with me, "not that close to it", ex-Guardian man Mike Bracken, chief executive of GDS, told the BBC. Strange, given that he's the senior responsible owner of IDA, and proud of it. Strange, given that he's the man who had DWP's invitation to tender withdrawn in December 2011 and replaced it with his own in March 2012.

Now it's HMRC's PAYE Online service which will be the first. We believe that. Now. But what will we believe come November?

Will we believe that digital-by-default will save money? How?

The planning for this phase of IDA goes back to September 2010. Three years later, HMRC will make sure that there's something for us to see this month. But it will be a pilot service, not a live one. We were warned. By the four professors. For all GDS's claims to be "agile", the Whitehall outcome seems to be the same, delays and resets, starting again at number 1, born again yesterday.

GDS, agile PAYE on-line

This is the month when the Government Digital Service (GDS) have to deliver.

December 2012

PAYE Online
A new online service for taxpayers who use PAYE to pay tax via their employer. The service will allow individuals to get guidance and information on their tax code and to inform HMRC when they make a change that affects the amount of tax they pay ... (p.17)

IDA
The Digital Solutions Programme, together with the Government Digital Service, is developing an Identity Assurance (IDA) capability that can be re-used across all departmental and governmental services. The ID hub is based around the Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) standard and gives a route for government to utilise existing, trusted identity providers in the market. A pilot IDA service, using point in time verification (a necessary part of the PAYE online exemplar) to make things simple and easy for one-off transactions will be used in October 2013 with wider IDA capabilities becoming available from October 2014. The new IDA capability will replace the current Government Gateway authentication used by HMRC’s online services with customers being migrated from the Government Gateway in 2015 ... (p.17)

Addressing the user problem
Under PAYE Online, we are giving customers the ability to update information that helps us better calculate their tax code. We are starting with company cars and medical benefits in October 2013. (p.20)
We expected a prototype by the end of 2011, the first public services were due to be tested by February 2012 and live by the autumn of 2012. Nothing happened.

Then we expected it to be fully operational for 21 million people by 31 March 2013. Nothing happened.

Now, we must assume, at last, identity assurance (IDA) is going to see the light of day, this month, October 2013.

What will we see?

Go back to HMRC's December 2012 digital strategy.

HMRC want us PAYE taxpayers to be able to report to them on-line any changes to our circumstances which affect our tax codes.

Until this month, if you wanted to change your tax code, you had to ring HMRC or send them an email or a letter. Now, for benefits in kind, specifically company cars and medical insurance, you'll be able to fill in a form on-line. No more phone calls, emails or letters. That's the promise. "Digital by default", as they say.

Of course, HMRC need to know it's you and not someone else trying to vandalise your tax code by telling HMRC that you're receiving benefits in kind when really you're not. That's where the "trusted identity providers" mentioned by HMRC come in.

This service could be offered over the existing Government Gateway but, no, GDS and HMRC want to operate it on a new pan-government "ID hub".

Will IDA be a reality by 31 October 2013, a year after it was meant to be?