April 7, 2017 VPWG Meeting Page

From IDESG Wiki
Revision as of 03:00, 28 June 2018 by Omaerz (talk | contribs) (2 revisions imported: Initial Upload of old pages from IDESG Wiki)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

VULNERABLE POPULATIONS WORKING GROUP MEETING NOTES

Attendees:

  • Denise Tayloe
  • Jim Kragh
  • Tom Jones
  • Christopher Spottiswoode
  • Wendy Fairfield
  • Lin Higgins
  • Roy Asfar
  • Linda Braun, Global Inventures


Meeting Notes:


Old Business:

  • Lin Higgins and Roy Asfar from Veterans Advantage to a provide date when they could present their program to VPWG
    • No update
  • Wendy Fairfield to provide more information on FIDO
    • No update


Current Business

  • Discussion on VPWG spreadsheet – Denise Tayloe, Dave Burhop and Jim Kragh got together to review the content in the spreadsheet earlier in the week. They agreed to have one more VPWG meeting (April 21), to discuss with others, who were not on the call, to set the tone on the approach going forward.
  • The Department of Motors Vehicles is recognized in every state. This could be the foundation for the VPWG for those individuals who do not have any form of identification. We can recommend a process going forward for consideration within communities that do not have credentials. We want to empower these individuals with electronic IDs and utilize that credential. Start with a basic card similar to what the State of Virginia has been doing.
  • YMCA – a child that goes into the YMCA can have a card. It is not a picture card. There is a unique card identifier number. Roy Asfar says he had to show his credit card, driver’s license, etc. to get his 5-year old daughter a card. The card is only recognized at the YMCA. Roy was not sure if in his contract he had to verify that the child was his. The YMCA card is a bar code scan and only recognized by them.
  • Children are creating credentials on the internet now to upload pictures, save game scores, and to register for NASTAR contests, as examples. As a first step, the child creates an account with minimum PII.
  • If the child wants to share data it triggers a higher level of verifiable parental consent in PRIVO. There is no way of proving the child is who they are.
  • If you want to let children get online at the YMCA, wouldn’t it be great if your daughter had a login credential to the YMCA that has YMCA attributes so that local organizations might provide discounts or a free download. That would be valuable. They bring in the parent and child and maybe a birth certificate.
  • We could put together some questions to help parents and children in this area – here is the expert advice we have gathered – for parents to use. This could become our platform for IDESG to say this is really good. Now you are seeing the value proposition.
  • Lin Higgins expressed concern about veterans being identified as vulnerable populations and the high level of ID theft. Federal Trade Commission and Veterans Affairs report it is a big problem. Tracking started in 2012 shows another 50 percent rise in ID theft. The issues are coming from government IDs in private life. Veterans are a protected class and their data cannot be sold. There are requirements in training (conducted by OMB) they have to be compliant in handing of veterans’ data at the federal level so it remains protected. In Virginia there is no law on how to handle veterans’ data. We are concerned when we see the DMV starting to collect data on veterans and where does that data go - is it secure – there are lot of questions. There are even issues with licenses and how they are handled in each state. In Virginia they identify child cards that they are issuing – special ID cards - but the veteran card is not a special ID card. It cannot be used for access to any federal benefits.
  • Jim noted that there is a case in the code where they recognize the VA card for voting in Virginia.
  • We should look at state and federal processes that offer these programs.
  • We need to make sure we have these issues clarified in our spreadsheet.
  • Lin Higgins – we hear from our members, a lot of them get state cards with a VA designation and it is recognized in their own state, but if they go out of state, it is not recognized.
  • Jim noted that in each category (children, VA, homeless) there are different issues to understand.
  • Veterans’ Advantage card program – is both a physical and eCard. Veterans’ go to their site or come through one of their partner companies who have created benefits for those carrying the card. Members can redeem benefits on the phone or online. They don’t have to share any of their PII to receive benefits. They authenticate through the card to prove identity with a patent pending technology. Age group: 18-95. 15 percent are on active duty. The program provides lots of information to veterans – federal, state and local entitlements, including break on real estate taxes.
  • Federal Identification given to vets during active duty, but when they leave, they have to give the ID back.
  • The program issues cards to families of veterans as well – but it is a slightly different card. 25 percent of the Veterans Advantage program members have household cards.
  • How can children get an online ID to represent themselves and a link to the parent? Lin Higgins’ program has some parent/child relationships. Maybe we should put together a pilot program using Veterans Advantage. PRIVO and Veterans Advantage program may be able to work together.
  • Lin Higgins would like to get more information on special ID card through DMV in Virginia. They do issue something for veterans.
  • Jim Kragh noted that we will have 8-10 weeks of quiet time to work on the vulnerable populations plan.
  • Dave Burhop’s comments on the spreadsheet were reviewed. They charge a fee for an identity card ($10).
  • Column 3 was briefly discussed in Dave Burhop’s absence.
  • Key questions – the value that they perceive in having a card is important to know. We need to look at value to having the card in an emergency as well. Also, who do you think that VP person would delegate authority to? This gets us into consent areas.
  • Those on the call felt the discussion at the meeting was beneficial.


Adjournment

  • Adjourn 11:58 p.m. EDT

Next meeting:

  • April 21, 2017
Retrieved from "https://wiki.idesg.org/index.php?title=April_7,_2017_VPWG_Meeting_Page&oldid=180"