Advertisement

Selecting Proper Authentication Mechanisms in Electronic Identity Management (EIDM): Open Issues

  • P. L. Agostini
  • R. Naggi

Abstract

Pursuing authentication through appropriate mechanisms for e-government procedures is a complex issue. The problem is not a technological one: from this point of view, the set of available authentication devices may be considered mature and stable. Major difficulties seem to arise from the fluidity of juridical taxonomies and of guiding-principles on which methodologies to select appropriate authentication mechanisms have to be established. Besides, e-inclusive policies and regulations have largely multiplied the number of variables to manage. In this scenario, effectiveness of available approaches and methodologies to support public bodies in their authentication choices may be legitimately questioned.

Keywords

Smart Card Electronic Signature Public Body Authentication Mechanism Legal Certainty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    European Community, Information Society and Media Directorate-General eGovernment Unit (2006). A Roadmap for a pan-European eIDM Framework by 2010. Brussels, Belgium. www.ec.europa.eu/information society/activities/egovernment research/doc/eidm roadmap paper.pdf
  2. 2.
    Bundesamt f ür Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik(BSI), Fraunhofer-Institute Secure Telecooperation(FhI-SIT), NOVOSEC AG (2004). Authentication in E-Government (Authentication mechanisms and areas of application). E-Government Handbuch. Bonn, Germany: BSI. www.bsi.de
  3. 3.
    Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) (2007). OECD Rec-ommendation on Electronic Authentication and OECD Guidance for Electronic Authenti-cation. Paris, France: OECD www.oecd.org/document/7/0,3343,en 2649 33703 38909639 1111,00.html
  4. 4.
    European Community (2006). COM(2006) 173 final. i2010 eGovernment Action Plan: Accelerating eGovernment in Europe for the Benefit of All. Brussels, Belgium. www.ec.europa.eu/information society/newsroom/cf/itemshortdetail.cfm?item id = 314
  5. 5.
    CENDI (Commerce, Energy, NASA, NLM, Defense and Interior) Persistent Identifica-tion Task Group (2004). Persistent Identification: A Key Component of An E-Government In-frastructure. Persistent Identification WhitepaperGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kuner, C. and Miedbrodt, A. (1999). Written Signature Requirements and Electronic Au-thentication: A Comparative Perspective. EDI Law Review 143, Vol. 6/2-3, 143-154Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bundesamt f ür Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik (BSI), Web for All, Forschungs-institut Technologie-Behindertenhilfe (FTB) (2004). Accessible e-Government. E-Government Hand-buch. Bonn, Germany: BSI. www.bsi.de
  8. 8.
    Carcenac, T. (2001). Rapport Au Premier Ministre - Pour une administrationélectronique citoyenne m éthodes et moyens. Paris, France: Archives Premier Ministre. www.archives.premier-ministre.gouv.fr
  9. 9.
    Jakob, G. (2002). Electronic Government: Perspectives and Pitfalls of Online Adminis-trative Procedure. Proceedings of the 3h Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’03). Track 5, p. 139bGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Agostini, P.L. and Resca, A. (2006). L’efficienza degli eIDM tra citizen-friendliness e certezza giuridica. Come la questione è stata affrontata da tre Enti Pubblici Italiani. Proceedings of the itAIS 2006 Workshop on Information Systems and People: Implementing Information Tech-nology in the Workplace (Universit à Bocconi, Milano, 26-27 October). Universit à Bocconi Milano, ItalyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. L. Agostini
    • 1
  • R. Naggi
    • 2
  1. 1.Università Cattolica del Sacro CuoreMilanoItaly
  2. 2.Università LUISS – Guido CarliRomaItaly

Personalised recommendations