'Success'? Verify FAILED for 40% in self-assess tax trial As many as 40 per cent of online self assessment tax users were unable to identify themselves in a trial of the government's gaffe-prone Verify identity assurance system by HMRC. In a blog post, the Government Digital Service claimed the trial, where just "60 per cent" managed to fully verify their identities, had been a " …
Fund raising? The politicians could just submit expense claims for the ticket price...
New office equipment - check
Moat cleaning - check
Fake invoice for office supplies - check, although their is a query on whether billing for the time spent in prison is included or will be invoiced seperately
Rocket trip to the brave new world - check
While I support the principal it seems a bit unfair on the civil servants who were probably just trying to implement the government's latest badly thought out crack pot scheme.
BTW Why write "but it will likely be due to the identity" for a UK story? Is the author American or ashamed of being English? Such an ugly way of phrasing things.
making every MP and councillor pay back every single expense claimed for which they have not published a receipt would be a start; follow that with making them repay any expense or allowance which us ordinaries can't get (and charge Wonga-style interest rates), then start clawing back earnings from those who have gone through the revolving door . we'd make a profit on it ..
"For example, a trial of Verify for online Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) payments appears to have largely have been abandoned by farmers in favour of an alternative telephone service."
Hmm so lets see, rural areas have shit broadband, farmers prefer to use phone over internet....Nope can't see any link there.
What loon thought farmers were a good set of first candidates, they must have some of the most complex financial profiles out there.
And that's without factoring in red diesel sales, badger baiting clubs and compensation payments to wounded walkers who wouldn't "get orf my laaaaannndd"
We could then simplify the entire process for by compensating injured badgers with red Diesel which they could sell to farmers, thus creating small rural self employed businesses by returning benefit scrounging badgers to the productive economy.
At least, that's the kind of thing I think after reading anything produced by DEFRA, surely the only department in the entire Government which would experience an increase in average IQ if IDS moved to be in charge of it.
Wtf Verify is meant to do and why are they spending my money on it?
According to the blurb it seems to be outsourcing the simple aspect of logging on to a Govt portal with a user id, in favour of some nebulous identify matching guessing process run by commercial interests.
What lunatic thought that this was worth spending money on? Im usually against big Govt databases, but if the alternative is spreading my details across a whole host of commercial interested parties - give me Big Brother any day of the week.
Blurb
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introducing-govuk-verify/introducing-govuk-verify
Of the five identity providers that have signed a contract with the GDS, only Experian and Dutch identity management firm Digidentity have so far won accreditation.
That's what GDS keep saying but it's not true.
Accreditation is awarded by tScheme.
tScheme's list of approved services for GOV.UK Verify lists Experian only. That's one "identity provider" that has so far won accreditation, and not two.
Digidentity still appear on tScheme's list of registered applicants, along with Mydex, the Post Office and Verizon. They're all in the same boat. The unaccredited boat, not yet certified trustworthy.
These five "identity providers" applied under the old framework for GOV.UK Verify. When the new framework comes in, they'll all have to start again – the new service will start with no certified "identity providers". Or two of them, as GDS will probably say.
My dad tried to get a pension assessment, tried three times, different browsers, errored each time
So he decided to call the 0345 number displayed with the error message, to be told by the recorded drone,
the number has changed to 0845.
Why the F**K they couldnt sort out the problem, more more damming, didnt bother to change the phone number on the web site.
If they cant achieve that simple task, why are they trying to develop anything more sophisticated,
it beggars belief.
"The GDS did not publish the reasons for the high failure rate, but it will likely be due to the identity assurance provider failing to identify users' credit records. There could be a number of reasons behind this..."
1) Incompetent civil service bureaucracy and management of outsourcing.
2) Extremely incompetent civil service bureaucracy and management of outsourcing.
3) Unbelievably incompetent civil service bureaucracy and poor management of outsourcing.
4) .....
I have lived where I live for 16 years. For many years I got my electoral roll thingy and used the two part no-change on line process to update the register.
With the new process involving gov.uk my local authority* couldn't match my address details to those held by DWP, despite my having contacted DWP a few years earlier from the same address by post because I couldn't use their on line service for my NI record as my address details didn't match their records**.
*despite having contacted them about various matters over years specifically related to my address details (I know that they can't match Council Tax records)
** I can't work out if my exasperation about the incompetence in practical matters is greater or less than my delight in the failure of big brother and the data holding company (yes it is..., btw)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
