How can people without phones access digital government services and identity verification securely?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Governments and vendors are rolling out phoneless, biometric, and physical alternatives so people without smartphones can still access digital services; BIO-key markets “phoneless, tokenless” biometrics and passwordless options [1] while UK officials say physical ID alternatives are being considered alongside GOV.UK One Login which has verified more than 11 million users [2] [3]. Policy guidance and programmes — including GSA’s digital-access tools and Notify.gov for SMS reminders — explicitly recognize mobile access and accessibility gaps in government services [4] [5].
1. The problem: a fast digital shift leaves people offline
Countries are accelerating digital public services and identity schemes that presume mobile access; analysts warn this risks exclusion as landlines go digital and vulnerable groups may lack phones or reliable internet [6] [7]. Digital transformation guidance from governments stresses mobile-first design is important but does not by itself solve the “no-phone” user problem [5] [4].
2. Vendor solutions: phoneless and biometrics as an alternative
Commercial identity providers are pitching phoneless authentication — identity-bound biometrics, tokenless and passwordless flows — designed for “phoneless” users or to reduce reliance on SMS-based MFA; BIO-key promoted such offerings at the Gartner IAM Summit, positioning biometrics and phishing‑resistant multifactor options as a way to lower friction and credential theft [1]. Vendor claims stress convenience and Zero Trust support, but these are vendor marketing claims in the supplied reporting [1].
3. Government approaches: federated systems and physical fallbacks
Some governments pursue federated digital ID systems (GOV.UK One Login) that aim for wide adoption while explicitly planning for non-digital routes: UK ministers indicate physical ID cards or “physical alternatives” could be offered for people unable to use digital IDs [2] [3]. That reflects a mixed model: a digital-first route for many, plus traditional channels where needed [3].
4. Practical, low‑tech options already used or suggested
Public-sector guidance highlights notification services (like GSA’s Notify.gov) and accessible mobile web design to reach citizens, including SMS reminders for services [4]. Beyond SMS and mobile sites, sources discuss broader digital public infrastructure (DPI) strategies to provide single‑interface access to services, which can help but require explicit non-phone channels to protect inclusion [7] [4].
5. Trade-offs and contested assumptions
Biometric, phoneless solutions promise convenience but raise governance and privacy questions not detailed in the vendor announcement; public-policy reporting notes digital ID programmes provoke parliamentary and civic scrutiny and require consultation on exclusion risks [1] [3]. Meanwhile national rollouts such as One Login are scaling fast (11 million verifications reported) yet governments are still publicly debating physical alternatives, underscoring political pushback and inclusion concerns [2] [3].
6. What works in practice: combining channels and safeguards
Available reporting points to a hybrid model as the most pragmatic path: invest in robust, accessible digital services while keeping non-digital channels (in-person offices, paper forms, physical IDs) and notification systems so people without phones receive timely information [4] [3]. Digital public infrastructure (DPI) advocates recommend interoperable, open standards to avoid vendor lock-in and to enable cross-government sharing while protecting privacy through legal safeguards [7].
7. Limitations in current reporting and open questions
The supplied sources do not provide operational details on how phoneless biometrics are deployed securely in the field, nor do they report cost, adoption barriers, or evidence on user outcomes for non-phone users; available sources do not mention those implementation metrics (not found in current reporting). There is also limited coverage here on safeguards for biometrics, redress mechanisms, or how in-person alternatives will scale (not found in current reporting).
8. What citizens and policymakers should demand
Policymakers should require clear inclusion plans, independent privacy impact assessments, and publicly funded non-digital channels before mandating digital ID use; industry proposals like BIO-key’s must be scrutinised for governance, transparency and interoperability [1] [3]. Administrations should publish uptake numbers and accessibility assessments as part of any rollout to show whether vulnerable groups are being served [4] [2].
Summary: the reporting points to three concrete paths — phoneless biometric products from vendors [1], government-led federated digital ID with physical fallbacks [2] [3], and administrative measures like Notify.gov and accessibility guidance to reduce exclusion [4] [5]. The crucial missing pieces in available reporting are independent assessments of security, privacy, cost, and the real-world accessibility outcomes for people who lack phones (not found in current reporting).