How Digital IDs Could Help and Harm People With Disabilities

More than 4.5 million people in the United States now have mobile drivers licenses (mDLs) alongside millions more enrolled in state-specific digital identity programs. While the move to digital could open new doors for those with disabilities, barriers have emerged that threaten to shut them out completely.
In the video above, we explore these challenges and the pain points states must tackle in terms of both accessibility and privacy.

THE PROMISE: A GATEWAY TO ACCESS AND COMMUNICATION

One of the most common selling points for the more than a dozen states promoting some form of digital identity is convenience. That’s a benefit that could be multiplied for those who face mobility or other challenges completing the tasks required to get or renew a physical ID in person.

“You lose your ID and getting another one requires transportation or money. Depending on if it’s expired or not you may need a proof of address — maybe you don’t have an address. These are all things I’ve seen come up as barriers,” said Meghan Baker, senior staff attorney for Disability Law Colorado, a nonprofit specializing in civil rights and discrimination issues. “A lot of people don’t drive, and if you don’t have a driver’s license, remembering to bring your ID everywhere is not necessarily the same.”
Colorado has released the opportunity for residents to choose to include a disability identifier symbol on both their physical driver’s license cards and on the myColorado app, a platform with a digital ID card that can be used for age verification and other essential services.

The symbol, which appears as an “i” on both the physical and digital cards, is intended to inform law enforcement and other first responders that the resident may have cognitive disabilities, neurological diversities, mental health disorders, sensory needs or chronic illness. According to the Colorado Division of Motor Vehicles, 2,341 of these signifiers have been issued since the program launched in July 2022.

A representative from the state told Government Technology in an email that it’s essential that other states considering this feature collaborate closely with disability advocates on the design and process. Their voluntary program allows the indicator to be revoked by an individual or their legal guardian and avoids disclosing specific medical conditions to protect privacy.

Baker explained the signifier program is a step toward expanding ways for people with a disability to communicate their needs in an emergency — potentially de-escalating tense encounters with law enforcement or other first responders, preventing confusion when one party doesn't know someone is deaf or hard of hearing, for example.

She believes there’s even more potential for digital ID technology to continue to communicate other essential information, like a psychiatric advance directive.

“Like if I’m a person with a mental health disability and I have a plan that says in advance how I want to cope, what are my triggers, what things work best for me, what kind of treatment — or noting who can receive information about me if I’m in an emergency situation,” she added.

The technology may not be ready for these features just yet, not all Colorado law enforcement will accept a myColorado ID during a traffic stop, and the state is pausing further rollout and training of the program to law enforcement to “evaluate customer feedback, usage data and advancement in the digital identity sector.” Yet Baker feels the potential of voluntarily communicating critical information early could have a significant impact on the daily life of some of the community’s most vulnerable.

THE REALITY: POTENTIALLY WIDENING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE

In May, Colorado Chief Information Officer David Edinger explained to Government Technology that 16 percent of users of the myColorado app share their mobile device with another person. While the state-specific app allows multiple users to log in and out of an account on one device, that feature isn’t available for mobile driver's licenses on privately owned company platforms, which is the technology that meets international security standards and can be used for airport checkpoints in some places with the Transportation Security Administration.

“A lot of the big mobile driver’s license companies — Google, Apple, Samsung — are saying ‘let's decide one ID per device.’ Well, if you’re somebody we’re trying to serve who's below the poverty line, we can’t forget about those folks. We can’t be in a situation where we’re saying, ‘Sorry, it’s one device per user,’” said Edinger. “We’re going to have to figure out how people are going to be able to share devices and still get all the services they want.”

This "one ID, one device" model creates a barrier not just for families, but for any individual facing economic instability. That usability feature gets more complicated for users who may not have a reliable device to use.

“A lot of folks with disabilities are multimarginalized, and may not have the stability that some folks have. So it could be, ‘I have this phone today, and then tomorrow I have this other phone,’” noted Baker.

THE CONSEQUENCE: WHEN ACCESSIBILITY FAILS

When releasing new technology in the public sector, it’s crucial for the brains behind the tool to find a way for every resident to use it.

The U.S. Justice Department ruled Oklahoma did not do that when the state released its OK Mobile ID app. The department got involved following a complaint from a person who is blind that the app was inaccessible, as she wasn’t able to take the pictures necessary to register for an account. The state later announced the app was decommissioned.

While all digital identity systems currently live in the country are strictly voluntary, Baker stressed that inclusion isn’t.

“It’s problematic to make it available only to some groups, or people without a disability and not others,” she said. “There probably could even be arguments that it was illegal, depending on if there’s not an equally comparable process the person can utilize.”