How has usage changed?
Posted: Sat Jan 25, 2025 6:02 am
Identification by authorized third parties - in the insurance context often representatives - and PostIdent continue to be important procedures when it comes to taking out insurance policies. If the requirements for the level of security are not quite as high, for example when registering for online services, identification by letter PIN, which is less complex for policyholders and thus ultimately an address identification, is often used instead of PostIdent.
While these asynchronous procedures continue to be very relevant, a stronger trend towards synchronous identity verification procedures can also be observed. The classic VideoIdent, i.e. the video chat with an agent who carries out the identification by verifying the security features of the ID document, is still the most important procedure when it comes to identifications with GwG relevance.
For less critical use cases, however, selfie identification, which had only lebanon consumer email list just arrived in the insurance industry at the time of my last article, has seen strong growth. The major providers NECT, IDNow and WebID Solutions in particular have achieved strong penetration in the German insurance market. As a reminder: here too, identification is carried out on the basis of security features of the ID document and comparison with the facial features of the person to be identified using "selfie" videos, but completely without the involvement of another person, i.e. automated.
However, both procedures have recently suffered a certain amount of damage to their reputation, as a report by the Chaos Computer Club was published that showed how these procedures can be tricked. This led to gematik withdrawing its approval of the procedures for electronic personal files and some insurers also temporarily deactivating these procedures in all application cases.
Overall, however, there does not seem to have been a permanent move away from these video-based procedures, and some implementations that had been switched off are now active again.
When I heard about these problems, I assumed that this would give a boost to the introduction of eID (i.e. identification using an electronic ID card via an NFC interface). While the procedure is already quite widespread in public administration and in some cases is the only approved synchronous procedure, I have not yet observed an increase in its spread in the insurance sector.
What other developments are there on the market?
As mentioned above, no new processes have emerged that currently suggest potential market relevance. The Bank-Ident system mentioned in the last article, which links to one's own bank account, has not yet been able to establish itself in Germany, unlike in the Netherlands, for example. Although yes®, the initiative by savings banks and cooperative banks, has been launched in the meantime, it has not been able to meet the expectations it had set itself.
While these asynchronous procedures continue to be very relevant, a stronger trend towards synchronous identity verification procedures can also be observed. The classic VideoIdent, i.e. the video chat with an agent who carries out the identification by verifying the security features of the ID document, is still the most important procedure when it comes to identifications with GwG relevance.
For less critical use cases, however, selfie identification, which had only lebanon consumer email list just arrived in the insurance industry at the time of my last article, has seen strong growth. The major providers NECT, IDNow and WebID Solutions in particular have achieved strong penetration in the German insurance market. As a reminder: here too, identification is carried out on the basis of security features of the ID document and comparison with the facial features of the person to be identified using "selfie" videos, but completely without the involvement of another person, i.e. automated.
However, both procedures have recently suffered a certain amount of damage to their reputation, as a report by the Chaos Computer Club was published that showed how these procedures can be tricked. This led to gematik withdrawing its approval of the procedures for electronic personal files and some insurers also temporarily deactivating these procedures in all application cases.
Overall, however, there does not seem to have been a permanent move away from these video-based procedures, and some implementations that had been switched off are now active again.
When I heard about these problems, I assumed that this would give a boost to the introduction of eID (i.e. identification using an electronic ID card via an NFC interface). While the procedure is already quite widespread in public administration and in some cases is the only approved synchronous procedure, I have not yet observed an increase in its spread in the insurance sector.
What other developments are there on the market?
As mentioned above, no new processes have emerged that currently suggest potential market relevance. The Bank-Ident system mentioned in the last article, which links to one's own bank account, has not yet been able to establish itself in Germany, unlike in the Netherlands, for example. Although yes®, the initiative by savings banks and cooperative banks, has been launched in the meantime, it has not been able to meet the expectations it had set itself.