Leo Goodstadt, Regina Connolly and Frank Bannister
spread use of electronic identity via devices such as mobile phones. More research is needed into this as a potential solution to low take up.
• Sixth, in many countries, the use of EICs for on‐line services has been modest and focused on tax filing / reporting. The reasons for this slow uptake may be due to what Poller et al., refer to as the chickenand‐egg problem( i. e. building critical mass), but it may equally have deeper roots in public concerns about privacy, freedom or other cultural factors. Is Poller et al’ s diagnosis correct? Is it really primarily a question of crucial mass?
• Finally, it is clear that Hong Kong is exceptional in the degree to which citizens have adopted the electronic card and adopted many of its wider possibilities. That provokes the question as to why and what, if any, lessons can be drawn for European governments?
The success of the Hong Kong card is in large part attributable to the particular and possibly unique set of benefits that having such a card confers on its citizens. When evaluated in terms of the framework of the technology acceptance model( Davis et al 1989), the Hong Kong card is perceived by its citizens to be both useful and easy to use. What is remarkable is that for the citizens of Hong Kong who live in a dense society in which privacy is difficult to achieve, the additional threats to privacy which are associated with an EIC do not raise greater concerns. This paper suggests that one reason for the success of the Hong Kong card is path dependence, i. e. it is grounded in history. A second is the importance of identity to the Hong Kong citizens themselves. A third is the creation of trust through retrained use of the card for policing and coercive political purposes. The card is not therefore seen as an externally imposed means of control and management, but as an integral part of what constitutes being a citizen of Hong Kong. Thus it may be that the speed and success of adoption of EICs may be less a question of how good or even how useful the technology is and more a question of historical path dependence and political culture.
If this is correct, the omens for success in Europe, at least over the short to medium term, are not encouraging. The technical rationalistic belief that the affordances of the technology will automatically lead to acceptance may be ill founded. Rising concerns about privacy, internal problems with identity within certain countries( as well as historical memories of relatively recent brutally repressive regimes) may create obstacles that will be different for governments to overcome. A more detailed comparative understanding of culture and history is therefore critical to any consideration of electronic identity card adoption in Europe.
References
Abbas, A.( 1997) Hong Kong. Culture and the Politics of Disappearance, University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis. Aichholzer, G. and Strauß, S.( 2010)“ Electronic Identity Management in e‐Government 2.0: Exploring a System Innovation exemplified by Austria”, Information Polity, 15( 1 / 2), 139‐152. Andrade, N.( 2012)“ Regulating Electronic Identity in the European Union: An analysis of the Lisbon Treaty’ s Competences and Legal Basis for eID”, Computer Law & Security Review, 28( 2), 153 – 162. Arora, S.( 2008) National ID Cards: A European Overview, Information Security Report, Vol. 13( 2), 46‐53. Blake, C.( 1982)“ Citizenship, Law and the State: The British Nationality Act 1981”, Modern Law Review, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp
179‐197. Breckenridge, K.( 2005)“ The Biometric State: The Promise and Peril of Digital Government in the New South Africa”,
Journal of Southern African Studies, 31( 2), 267‐282. Davis, F., Bagozzi, R. and P. R. Warshaw( 1989) User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical
Models, Management Science, 35( 8), 982‐1003. de Maio, A.( 2012) Digital by Default, but Not Smart Enough: Hits and Misses of the UK Government Digital Strategy, Gartner Group, Available at: http:// blogs. gartner. com / andrea _ dimaio / 2012 / 11 / 09 / digital‐by‐default‐but‐not‐smartenough‐hits‐and‐misses‐of‐the‐uk‐government‐digital‐strategy / Dunham, A. L.( 1955) The Industrial Revolution in France, 1815‐1848. Exposition Press, New York, pp 201‐2. Fairchild, A. and de Vuyst, B.( 2012) " The Evolution of the e‐ID card in Belgium: Data Privacy and Multi‐Application Usage ",
Proceedings of the 6 th International Conference on Digital Society, Valencia, Spain, January 30‐February 4th, pp 13‐16.
Fairchild, A. and B. de Vuyst,( 2009) Privacy, Transparency and Identity: The Implementation of the e‐ID card in Belgium, in Remeny, D.( ed.), Proceedings of the 9 th European Conference on e‐Government, London, UK, 29‐30 June, pp 258‐ 263. Fang, H. and Heng, J. H.( 1983) Social Changes and Changing Address Norms in China, Language in Society, 12( 4), 495‐507. Garrioch, D.( 2002) The Making of Revolutionary Paris, Berkeley, CA, The University of California Press, p 316. Goodstadt. L. F.( 2009a) " A Fragile Prosperity: Government Policy and the Management of Hong Kong’ s Economic and
Social Development ", HKIMR Working Paper No. 1 / 2009, pp 15‐7.
219