csstarling
commented
4 years ago ID verification: options and tradeoffs
Option 1 (preferred): Self-reported ID confirmation, which provides lower evidence of identity
⃞ By checking this box, I verify that I am [name] at [address].
Pros: Streamlined user experience, no dependency on Login.gov for MVP launch, simplifies and speeds path to production for the MVP, many districts were gathering ID info over the phone without doing a visual check/verifying that the ID matched the person on the phone and we didn’t hear of any issues. Cons: Relies on users to self-report ID confirmation at the point of sale, which may hinder enforcement since there will be less certainty that the person who purchased the permit is the person who actually agreed to abide by permit conditions (however, people who falsely confirm their identity would be violating 18 U.S. Code § 1001); people who don’t have a government issued ID number who might be barred from purchasing an in-office permit could potentially purchase a permit online (we can validate data format for an “ID” form field, but there’d be no check whether the ID number is valid).
Option 2: Login.gov, which provides strong evidence of a permittee’s identity, before folks can proceed with the transaction
Pros: ID proofing using government issued ID; users could log in and have their info pre-populated on the permit form, rather than having to enter it every time; single sign-on experience for eventual scaling to additional permit types and adding features on the roadmap for later releases (e.g., enforcing household limits, letting users see past purchase information, etc.).
Cons: Potentially onerous account creation process for users, additional Login.gov licensing cost, need to modify existing agreement could delay pilot launch beyond the early target of end of Sept. Login.gov does not provide ID number information, so users would still be required to input their ID number. (https://developers.login.gov/attributes/)
Open questions: What is the minimum info that can be printed on the permit in order to make it enforceable? What information do LEOs use in enforcement? Revisit notes from LEO interviews and discuss w/ pilot forest LEOs Is name and transaction info (permit number, date purchased) enough? Do we need an address? Can we email users their own government issued ID # (sensitive PII)? GSA privacy officer’s opinion is that we can, as long as we appropriately disclose to users how their info will be used and what information will be passed on via email. Need to confirm w/ USFS privacy officer--ultimately, it’s their call. If we want to pursue this path, there are implications for the design of the “accept conditions” page. What is the level of effort to having permittee data requirements changed in the handbook if needed? To what extent do we need to coordinate with BLM on this?
mgwalker
MelissaBraxton
bboddiger
carlsonem
Background
This story replaces #110 and related to #109 around folks entering required information. Currently, ID and signature are "required" to verify ID in-office, and if ID verification remains required.
Link to trade offs docs
Acceptance criteria
Tasks
Definition of done