[HN Gopher] Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers
___________________________________________________________________
Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-digital-id-scheme-to-...
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cwydl81dg13t
https://www.theverge.com/news/786323/uk-digital-id-plans-man...
Author : alex77456
Score : 321 points
Date : 2025-09-26 02:09 UTC (20 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| burnt-resistor wrote:
| Kafkaesque doesn't mean that much anymore when reality is far
| darker.
| AfterHIA wrote:
| Andy French and I applaud you.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3H_peKI6R0
| add-sub-mul-div wrote:
| Do they not already have the equivalent of a US social security
| card? (For the employment eligibility, not the program benefits.)
| Is this something much different from that?
| xixixao wrote:
| They have a couple "numbers", but not a id "card" besides a
| passport (which only citizens get, not permanent residents). ID
| cards are pretty standard across EU.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| You aren't required to show your social security card to your
| employer. You aren't even required to have the physical card
| for almost all purposes. It specifically says on the card, and
| in other places that it is not to be used for identification.
|
| https://www.ssa.gov/ssnumber/assets/EN-05-10553.pdf
| Terr_ wrote:
| > It specifically says on the card, and in other places that
| it is not to be used for identification.
|
| The US tried that back when Social Security Numbers were
| introduced. It specifically said it was for tax-purposes (a
| context where it might've been adequately-secure) and not to
| be used for anything else.
|
| Yet without any actual penalties against "other places", it
| got misused everywhere by companies trying to save a buck on
| primary-key choice and authenticating people.
| boredatoms wrote:
| Its the I-9 thats required, the SSN card is just one way to
| satisfy that
| arrowsmith wrote:
| We have a "national insurance number" used for tax purposes but
| it's just a number that you fill in in forms; no-one asks to
| see the cards. I'm not sure they even issue the physical cards
| anymore? I lost mine a long time ago.
| lvturner wrote:
| Having just paid a small fortune to renew my passport. I'm not
| super excited about this, especially as I live outside the UK.
|
| I also don't trust them not to make a complete hash of all this,
| removing all potential utility while simultaneously increasing
| the chances of my ID being stolen.
|
| _sigh_
| elcritch wrote:
| As an American it seems to me that the UK government insists on
| finding a way to upset all sides on any given issue like
| illegal immigration. If anything it's the singular and unique
| skill of Whitehall.
| 0xDEAFBEAD wrote:
| A good compromise leaves everyone mad.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| A good compromise leaves everyone _dissatisfied_. A bad
| deal leaves everyone mad.
| frollogaston wrote:
| like IPv6
| fruitworks wrote:
| whats wrong with ipv6? other than square brackets
| lvturner wrote:
| To be fair though, complaining about 'things' is practically
| a British national sport.
| foldr wrote:
| Don't be misled by the reaction on HN. The general concept of
| a national ID card is not unpopular in the UK:
|
| https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/support-for-
| th...
|
| IMO this is a gimmick and probably won't have much effect
| either for good or bad. I would vote against it given the
| chance. But there aren't that many British people who feel
| especially strongly about this.
| hayd wrote:
| > I would vote against it given the chance.
|
| Unfortunately the British people are rarely given a chance
| to vote and even more rarely listened to.
| foldr wrote:
| In the last 10 years the UK has had 4 general elections
| and the Brexit referendum. Some countries have more local
| democracy (e.g. direct elections of DAs in the US), but
| in terms of opportunities to change the national
| government or influence national policy, I don't think
| the UK is doing too badly.
| digianarchist wrote:
| If it's only applicable to citizens then how do they hope it will
| help on migration?
|
| Edit: The Times says this is to include all workers:
|
| https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/digital-id-comp...
| OhMeadhbh wrote:
| When the cops stop you on the street and ask for your digital
| ID and you can't show it to them, they'll take you to a
| deportation center. #PapersPlease
| laurieg wrote:
| This is how things work in Japan. If you are not a Japanese
| citizen then the police can ask to see your residence card to
| confirm your status.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| From Wikipedia:
|
| "Tourism in the United Kingdom is a major industry and
| contributor to the U.K. economy, which is the world's 10th
| biggest tourist destination, with over 40.1 million visiting
| in 2019, contributing a total of PS234 billion to the GDP"
| OhMeadhbh wrote:
| Like the US, I think there are multiple interest groups,
| not all of whom are interested in seeing "aliens" on
| British streets. I was named a "Highly Skilled Migrant" by
| Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom and Northern
| Ireland and paid a fair amount of money to the University
| of Liverpool and yet, never got the feeling I was in any
| way anything other than a foreigner.
| Broken_Hippo wrote:
| The same way other things "help" migration. By making life very
| difficult for you if you aren't a proper citizen. I imagine the
| outcome for this would be to make it nearly impossible to do
| anything with the government or doing anything you might need
| an ID for, especially online. Some citizens will probably
| suffer too, but it is a price the government is willing to pay.
| digianarchist wrote:
| Wouldn't that push people into black markets for day to day
| living?
| throwawa14223 wrote:
| IDs don't help because the moment the ID is useful the
| government will find a way to hand them out to migrants.
| throwawaydjdu wrote:
| Reminder that the UK arrests 12000/year for online posts, by far
| the most in the West.
|
| The UK already has government issued ID, the proof of age card.
| This is about tying your identity to your online behaviour.
| steve_taylor wrote:
| My prediction is that it will soon be a requirement for all
| websites and apps with user-generated content to require
| authentication with the UK government's Digital ID OAuth
| provider and that requirement will include linking the user's
| username to their Digital ID. It won't require websites and
| apps to pay a third-party provider to check users' identity, so
| the UK government can argue that it doesn't place a
| disproportionately burdensome cost on smaller websites and
| apps.
|
| After the UK implements this, other western countries will
| follow. For example, here in Australia, it's a simple solution
| to the under-16 social media ban which is about to come into
| effect. The bill was given deliberately weak verification
| requirements so it didn't seem too big-brother, but I'd bet
| real money that there's already an amendment in the works to
| tie it to digital ID after they discover what everyone already
| knows (i.e. that it'll be easily bypassed), followed by another
| amendment to tie the digital ID to site/app ID, for online
| safety reasons of course.
|
| In time, websites/apps may offer your government's digital ID
| as an alternative to their in-house identity provider. If this
| becomes globally ubiquitous, many of them will stop maintaining
| their own authentication and rely solely on government ID
| providers. The identity provider you use will depend on where
| you are, so VPNs will become useless.
|
| This was all inevitable from the day the internet opened up to
| everyone. Governments have an insatiable desire for power and
| limitless paranoia about threats to their power.
| palmfacehn wrote:
| I remember when the Internet was celebrated as decentralized
| media, allowing common citizens to criticize repressive
| regimes. Today it seems like the west is emulating the
| countermeasures already perfected by those repressive
| regimes.
| sjapkee wrote:
| Internet peaked too early to build any countermeasures for
| this.
| marak830 wrote:
| "But it's not just "online comments" as Yaxley-Lennon seems to
| imply. A police officer quoted deep within the article explains
| that these acts include "any form of communication," and can
| relate to "serious domestic abuse-related crimes." "
|
| https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tommy-robinson-uk-speech-cla...
|
| Yeah, not really online posts though is it.
| octo888 wrote:
| "can relate to" is weasely. What are the actual numbers?
| protocolture wrote:
| Administrative detections live and well.
| isodev wrote:
| I've always lived in places where having an ID on you has been
| part of your "citizen responsibilities". So reading the post my
| feeling was "oh cool, they're getting a new eID-like system". But
| I imagine it's a huge step if folks could get by without an ID at
| all.
| Nursie wrote:
| In the UK it has never been compulsory to carry ID, even when
| driving.
|
| At a traffic stop the police have the option to require you to
| present documents at a police station within seven days if they
| think something is fishy.
|
| And people do seem to exist quite happily without formal
| identification. As someone who has always had a passport and
| driving license it was a bit of an eye-opener to me, but if you
| don't drive and don't travel, some folks just get by without.
|
| So if there is a requirement to have a Britcard, and to present
| your 'Britcard' when stopped for any reason, then it is
| definitely a change.
| userbinator wrote:
| That is very surprising. In the US, you are legally required
| to carry your license when driving. If you are caught driving
| without one, expect to be arrested.
| kimixa wrote:
| Also the US reserves the right to demand ID if you're
| within 100 miles of a border - which is effectively 2/3 of
| the population. And detain you until your status can be
| "verified", however long that could take.
|
| That _should_ only be for non-citizens, but I have no idea
| how you could prove that without documentation in the first
| place.
|
| So for the vast majority of Americans, you probably have to
| be carrying ID at all times anyway, else you risk someone
| deciding you "might" not actually be a citizen.
|
| If this same rule was enacted in the UK, there would be no
| place on the British Isles that would be excluded, as
| nowhere is more than 100 miles from the coast.
| touristtam wrote:
| In France you have to carry a state issued ID regardless
| of your location within the country. Driving license
| might be asked to be provided if there is an assumption
| you have one. A lasting legacy of the 40s.
| palmfacehn wrote:
| In practice the pseudo-crime of being "suspicious
| looking" also requires ID. Good luck if you want to argue
| your constitutional rights. Immigration status is topical
| for the current era. Something as benign as walking up
| the street to pickup takeout could involve identifying
| yourself to the police and waiting for them to clear you
| for warrants.
| alostpuppy wrote:
| That hasn't been my experience, perhaps it's state to
| state. I've been stopped without ID and had no problem.
| I've even boarded a plane through TSA without my license.
| trenchpilgrim wrote:
| In my state I have an app on my phone for it. I only use my
| physical card to get into bars.
| arrowsmith wrote:
| The UK used to be a high-trust society.
| cheema33 wrote:
| I lived in the UK for a while as a teenager. During that
| time I got a driver's license. I was astonished to find
| out that it was paper-only. No photo. My brother could
| use it if needed. The laws were changed around 2000. But
| I think you are correct. UK used to be a high-trust
| society.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| One needs a "National Insurance" number (NINO) to work
| legally.
|
| I thought it was also required to collect any type of
| government benefit too.
| aembleton wrote:
| That NI number lives in my head. I don't have to carry a
| physical card or install an app.
| angulardragon03 wrote:
| The counterpoint to this is obviously that the requirement to
| present ID to vote is tantamount to voter suppression - iirc
| there is no "free" form of ID in the UK.
|
| As an ex-Brit I am also used to carrying an ID and a drivers
| license, and I've always found it quite weird that you can't
| get an ID card of any kind that isn't a full-fledged passport
| or a drivers license.
| Nursie wrote:
| I mean I guess this new thing is going to be free?
|
| I also don't live in the UK any more, still a brit and not
| yet Australian, but I have had to adjust to it being
| necessary to carry your license here when driving. It means
| I can't really leave home without my wallet, which is odd.
| We're getting electronic licenses before long though,
| hopefully.
| angulardragon03 wrote:
| Honestly no idea. Hopefully! And hopefully you'll be able
| to vote with it.
|
| I just have a magnetic wallet on the back of my iPhone
| with the two cards and my travel card, so I always have
| them. I don't carry a physical payment card or cash so
| don't need a wallet otherwise
| MrToadMan wrote:
| The UK did have compulsory ID cards, which needed to be
| carried at all times, during both World Wars.
| LinAGKar wrote:
| In this case, sounds like you'll not just be required to carry
| an ID. Everyone in the country will be legally required to
| carry an Android phone or iPhone.
|
| Well, maybe the app will keep working and you can update it
| from Aurora Store. Pretty vague so far.
| steanne wrote:
| didn't they try that 20 years ago and repeal? and back then it
| was voluntary.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_Cards_Act_2006
| Nursie wrote:
| There was a big backlash and they eventually caved in and
| cancelled the scheme when the government changed.
|
| I lived in South London at the time and sent a letter to my MP
| to protest about the creation of a database state and increased
| surveillance, fundamentally changing the nature of the
| relationship between the citizen and the state.
|
| About two months later I got a form response that started
| "Don't worry, it's not just an ID card, there will be a huge
| database behind it!"
|
| Thanks. Way to show you didn't even read what I wrote.
|
| I think in the intervening years that relationship has already
| fundamentally changed though. Privacy _from_ government in most
| western countries seems to be something of a fading memory, it
| would be hard to make those same arguments in 2025.
| globular-toast wrote:
| The MPs never read anything. You got sent back one of a few
| pre-written replies by a secretary. I was stupid enough to
| reply to one of those replies once and never got anything
| back.
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| This appears to just be an extension (in free app form) of the UK
| government "One Login" system used to get access to most
| government web services. This currently has about 12 million
| users.
|
| https://www.gov.uk/using-your-gov-uk-one-login
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/25/keir-starme...
| mastazi wrote:
| I'm not clear if this is digital ONLY or if I people can choose
| to carry a physical card when required, instead of a smartphone.
|
| If it's the former, then it means it's now mandatory for all
| British citizens to become customers of the Google/Apple duopoly
| LOL
| mrob wrote:
| And "become customers" means it will become mandatory to sign
| away your rights to a foreign corporation by agreeing to their
| terms of service. This kind of abuse of power is a clear
| example of why the UK needs a real constitution.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| The UK has a real constitution. A central side of it is HRA
| 1998 which Tory/Reform want to do away with because it
| curtails power of government.
| mrob wrote:
| A real constitution is not a vague collection of
| traditions. Every other country understands "constitution"
| to mean a written document. A collection of traditions
| cannot meet the primary aim of a constitution, which is
| granting people clear and unambiguous rights.
|
| Furthermore, a constitution is generally more difficult to
| change than a law. The Human Rights Act can be repealed by
| a simple majority of MPs voting to repeal it.
| LinAGKar wrote:
| And if Google bans you for some reason (which they have been
| known to do sometimes), I guess you'll be kicked out of the
| country unless you buy an iPhone.
| astonex wrote:
| It's been mentioned that you will be able to get a physical
| card with a chip in it for those who want it
| remarkEon wrote:
| >The proposals are the government's latest bid to tackle illegal
| immigration, with the new ID being a form of proof of a citizen's
| right to live and work in the UK.
|
| How does a digital ID solve an illegal immigration problem? I
| watched the video and the suggestion is that this makes it easier
| for employers to verify that someone is authorized to work. Is
| that actually true? I don't live in the UK and have not visited
| in several years. If the idea is that a digital ID authorizes
| employment ... well I hope people can see the problem, here.
| Insanity wrote:
| In all fairness, the "immigration" story is likely just a
| convenient spin on a more realistic goal of state surveillance
| on it's own citizens.
| Nursie wrote:
| While there is almost guaranteed to be an aspect of this, the
| UK is going through a period where immigration is in the news
| _constantly_ and the populist party "Reform UK" are on the
| rise.
|
| The Labour government has realised that whatever their own
| feelings are about people coming to the UK by irregular means
| and claiming asylum, they need to be seen to recognise the
| popular narrative right now that the boats must be stopped,
| and be seen to be taking action.
|
| So I don't think the immediate state goal right here is
| likely to be anything deeper than desperately trying to head
| off Nigel Farage, who is capturing a lot of public discourse
| about this 'crisis'.
| gmac wrote:
| ... except that trying to out-Farage Farage (by being
| bastards to asylum seekers) will lose them many of their
| traditional supporters (who are not big on being bastards
| to asylum seekers) and seems unlikely to gain them many
| Farage supporters (why would they take some half-hearted
| populist bastardry when they can have the real deal?).
|
| The 'small boats' narrative is ludicrously over-reported
| here. It's such a clear case of those with most of the
| resources scapegoating those with none of the resources as
| the cause of everyone else's problems.
| Nursie wrote:
| I don't think any of that matters any more, the issue is
| so firmly in the public eye that Labour need to show that
| they've solved it whether it's a 'real' problem or not.
|
| > unlikely to gain them many Farage supporters
|
| Farage is polling ahead of both major parties at the
| moment. That support came from somewhere. To characterise
| all of those supporters as only interested in populist
| bastardry seems a bit of a surface take on the issue. Why
| have they turned to someone like that? Most likely they
| feel their own lives and prospects getting worse and in
| their dissatisfaction have turned to an easy answer,
| someone who promises to change everything and blame the
| outsider. To put it starkly, reductively even, you don't
| get nazis when everyone feels like their life is on the
| up and up. Well not many anyway.
|
| The mainstream of UK politics needs to get to grips with
| (perceived?) worsening standards of living and failing
| services, and actually take action that makes people's
| lives better. Instead for decades now it has just
| tinkered at the edges, seemingly run by ambitionless
| accountants. Shuffling half a percent here, half a
| percent there, not really achieving very much but spewing
| vast volumes of hot air. It's not really a wonder to me
| that a sizeable minority are looking outside of that, or
| are getting frustrated that they can't get a doctor's
| appointment or the roads are falling apart. It's all too
| easy for Fartrage to say - look over there!
| ryandrake wrote:
| > Instead for decades now it has just tinkered at the
| edges, seemingly run by ambitionless accountants.
| Shuffling half a percent here, half a percent there, not
| really achieving very much but spewing vast volumes of
| hot air
|
| Speaking from the other side of the pond, we can say
| quite confidently that the solution is _not_ electing
| someone who will make reckless, bold moves. The brain
| trust here voted against "ambitionless, measured
| improvements" and for that, we got a chaotic circus.
| Nursie wrote:
| Agreed, but unfortunately at times when things seem not
| to be going so well in general, people are prone to
| electing the person that promises them large positive
| changes by throwing out the stale old rulebook. Even if
| it's not credible. Even when large parts of what's
| apparently going wrong have been invented by that same
| bad actor...
|
| I think this is part of why Brexit got through as well,
| some people felt it was a way to shake up a crusty,
| unresponsive establishment. That didn't go so great!
| ratelimitsteve wrote:
| we spent decades dying to "measured improvements". I
| don't like what my peers did about the fact that they're
| angry or what in particular they demanded but I don't
| begrudge them being angry or demanding something. You can
| only bullshit people about their basic living conditions
| for so long and long ago our political class gave up on
| the idea of working for people as their raison d'etre and
| decided instead that their job was to give us as little
| as it takes in order to get our votes and then use the
| power we give them to funnel money back to their donors.
| The mistake wasn't in realzing that the "left" wasn't on
| their side, it was in thinking that the right was just
| because they were the ones who pointed out how feckless,
| entitled and self-absorbed the center-right elitists that
| pass themselves off as the left had become.
| padjo wrote:
| It's amazing to see Labour fall for the same trick that
| the Tories did with Brexit, and also incredible that
| Farage is still a political force after all the Brexit
| lies.
| card_zero wrote:
| That's not a trick, it's how third parties have influence
| in a two-party system: the two main parties are compelled
| to steal any popular policy from a third party before it
| becomes a credible threat.
| Erwin wrote:
| Because the same thing has happened successfully in most
| other European countries. Nationalist parties talk about
| scary immigrants, ordinary parties tighten immigration
| rules, and the nationalist parties fail to gain power.
|
| For example, Denmark created the highly criticized
| "Smykkelov" in 2016 which lets us confiscate any values
| asylum seekers have over 10.000 DKK (e.g. jewelry as the
| name says, but never actually used for jewelry just cash)
| in 2016. It has been hardly used (10 times in the first 3
| years), but it had enormous press coverage. The largest
| left party (and the party of current PM) voted for it.
|
| The previously largest nationalist party (DF) have never
| been in power, despite existing for 30 years and getting
| 20+% of the vote in 2015 -- at most they were a support
| party to the right-wing government.
| crote wrote:
| The media are (mostly) just parrotting what the politicians
| are saying. Having _both_ major parties talking about
| "stopping the boat" isn't going to quiet down that down, is
| it? It'll just shift the Overton window.
|
| What's Labour's plan when the boats are stopped and Reform
| progresses to "round up and deport all the brown people"?
| They are never going to out-anti-immigrant the anti-
| immigrants, all they will achieve is losing the left-wing
| vote.
| incone123 wrote:
| Recently the prime minister delivered a speech and then
| later walked the entire thing back saying that he hadn't
| read it before delivering it. A man who has declared that
| he is nothing more than a text to speech engine probably
| doesn't have a plan.
| Nursie wrote:
| I think that the boats thing stirs up ideas that
| migration is out of control, that the government is
| unable or unwilling to get a grip on the situation, that
| the system (even if they don't know what the system is,
| or even if there is a system) is being abused and somehow
| cheated. That's (IMHO) why it's so easy to get people
| riled up on irregular migration.
|
| I'm not sure if they end that route that they would need
| to out-anti-immigrant the anti-immigrants any further,
| but in the current climate they will need to be able to
| make the case that the country can decide who comes in,
| and that migration is to the benefit of everyone, migrant
| or not.
|
| Again, it doesn't really matter if it's an actual
| problem, it is an important enough _perceived_ problem
| that they need to be able to show they have a grip on it
| and are running the show in the interests of the average
| Brit on the street.
|
| Then to really put the issue to bed, they'll need to do
| something about the failing services and general feeling
| of decline in the UK. As I said in response to a sister
| comment - you don't get many nazis when people feel their
| lives are going well. It's not so concerning if some out
| group is getting a slice of the cake if you feel you're
| getting yours too. It's when your slice seems to get a
| little smaller every day that you start looking for
| scapegoats.
|
| Of course the other question is - will they actually lose
| the left wing vote? Or would they win it back?
|
| Opinion polls in UK politics (from what I've heard on the
| radio) put the politics of 'Reform' voters left of centre
| - they're keen on renationalising rail, water and
| electricity for a start. All solid left-wing ideas
| outside of immigration policy, that you'd usually expect
| to hear from Labour supporters.
| octo888 wrote:
| Never waste a good crisis
| hn_throw2025 wrote:
| You are correct. The Identity Cards Act of 2006 was brought
| in by Blair's Labour Government under the guise of
| preventing terrorism, the hot topic at the time. It was
| repealed by the incoming Tory/Liberal coalition under the
| Identity Documents Act 2010. Lobbying for Digital ID cards
| continued by the "Tony Blair Institute for Global Change"
| amongst others.
| sunshine-o wrote:
| Yes and keep in mind that while the common law abiding
| citizen feels like he is living in the 1984 novel, most
| governments have no idea who is actually walking around, a
| resident or citizen in their countries. It is now anywhere
| between a 5% to 20% error margin in "the west".
|
| Worst I knew for sure of a specific country which had no
| databases of who was currently imprisoned, with inmates just
| walking out. Yes, it is that bad.
|
| At the end it can just be viewed as an IT problem, the same
| way most corporations have multiple CRM and have been working
| on "a 360 view of their customers" for decades. Even most
| licensed, audited banks have those types of error margins if
| you really asked them to provide a clean list of their
| clients.
|
| So all we hear about Digital IDs is a marketing term for the
| new version of that database they are working on.
|
| A lot of countries were already collecting fingerprints when
| issuing IDs decades ago. But those projects fails like most
| CRMs.
|
| So now the UK and others are arresting people for Facebook
| posts because it is actually a good database. Probably way
| better than their actual fingerprints or criminals databases.
|
| I am not sure if you should be terrified or just not care
| about those announcements.
| Nursie wrote:
| I can think of several, which problem were you thinking of?
|
| In lots of countries you need a specific right to work, and
| people who are on holiday visas or who are making asylum
| applications, or have simply entered the country without the
| right to do so, are not allowed to work.
|
| Some consider these restrictions themselves to be a problem.
|
| Currently, employers in the UK are legally required to check
| the right-to-work status of people they employ. This is usually
| done with a random assortment of ID documents and visa status
| checks. The proposal (I think) is to replace this and other
| functions with "Britcard", a digital ID system.
|
| So another problem might be that government security schemes
| are usually pretty bad.
|
| And a further one could be that there's little to stop (say) an
| asylum applicant from 'borrowing' someone else's britcard-
| enabled phone to sign on and work Uber Eats illegally, which is
| one of the issues that they are allegedly trying to tackle.
|
| Beyond that ... sure there's massive privacy implications etc
| etc.
|
| So yeah, which problem did you have in mind?
| wakawaka28 wrote:
| It doesn't solve any immigration problem at all. It's just a
| dumb excuse for a bunch of bullshit.
| mrtksn wrote:
| The banks and service providers can ask for your digital ID,
| the employers can ask for your digital ID and when that becomes
| the standart you will have very hard time to have a life in UK
| without having all the permissions.
|
| Most of EU and many other countries have something like that,
| at least you have a citizenship or resident number that they
| can check against to see what's your situation.
|
| In UK though, everything is run over proof of address and it's
| quite annoying for new immigrants(legal or not) because its
| circular. You can't have anything that can be used as proof of
| address without having proof of address already. At some point
| you manage to break circle by first having something that
| doesn't require proof of address but it is serious enough to be
| accepted as one, i.e. I know people who were riding the tube
| without tapping in so that when they are caught the government
| will send them a letter about their fine and they can use the
| letter to open a bank account.
|
| The Turkish version is both great, annoying and terrible.Great
| because you can do all your government stuff and some other
| stuff like see your full medical history, make an appointment
| etc or managing your service subscription(water, electricity,
| cable. GSM etc) from the government portal. Annoying because
| whatever you buy beyond groceries now they are asking for your
| ID number and all purchases are becoming a chore. Terrible
| because these systems are regularly hacked and all your private
| data is online for sale and some even run an API to access your
| govt stuff live.
|
| It works fine to manage legal immigration, you give the
| immigrants the ID so the can have their subscriptions etc. Once
| they are no longer wanted you know where to find them and make
| providers cut them off. It doesn't work for illegal immigrants
| because since they can't register to anything they end up just
| asking a friend to start them a subscription or pay extra to
| have some employee start them a subscription that in the
| records look like its for the employee.
| rock_artist wrote:
| > In UK though, everything is run over proof of address and
| it's quite annoying for new immigrants(legal or not) because
| its circular.
|
| The circular issue is quite similar to Spain. Where in order
| to obtain residency you need an address. But for being able
| to rent, most likely you'll need a bank account and ideally a
| Spanish identification number. But for having a local bank
| account you need an address.
|
| Similar to the above. This needs to be broken in order to get
| residency.
| pjmlp wrote:
| In Portugal it gets even worse, because many landlords
| still ask for a guarantor willing to take responsability
| over the rent.
|
| My experience in a few European countries was also
| circular, the only thing that helped was that I could use
| the work contract and a letter from HR to break the cycle,
| however this naturally only works when the job is already
| secure before coming into the country.
| throw-the-towel wrote:
| Ditto for France, except that it's de facto illegal to rent
| a place without having a bank account.
| m6h12 wrote:
| There is a way to get into the Spanish bureaucracy quite
| painlessly! Its NIE blanco. You can get it in any Spanish
| embassy, before even getting to Spain. With that you can
| create a bank account or job hunt.
| vovavili wrote:
| >But for having a local bank account you need an address
|
| Bunq solved this issue for quite a few Western European
| countries, thankfully.
| octo888 wrote:
| > Most of EU and many other countries have something like
| that
|
| And no EU country has any illegal immigration thanks to the
| ID card
|
| /s
| splix wrote:
| AFAIK the recommended way is to open a bank account through
| smaller banks (aka neobanks). They just send you a card to
| address specified and once you activated it you (first) get a
| bank account for payments and (second) can use it to prove
| address for others. Also, if you legally rent then you get
| the council tax documents, though it takes roughly a month
| for them to send. This is another proof of address. And the
| bills of course, but again it takes a month or so to receive
| the first letter.
|
| So it's unclear how a digital ID solves anything in regarding
| the proof of address.
| cassianoleal wrote:
| > The banks and service providers can ask for your digital
| ID, the employers can ask for your digital ID and when that
| becomes the standart you will have very hard time to have a
| life in UK without having all the permissions.
|
| They already ask you for a "share code" which they then
| verify on the Home Office website. What does the Digital ID
| add to that?
| lawlessone wrote:
| >Once they are no longer wanted you know where to find them
|
| "Once we chewed them up we spit them out"
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _How does a digital ID solve an illegal immigration problem?_
|
| It's presumably harder to forge a cryptographic signature than
| paper documents? Not saying it's a good tradeoff. But executed
| competently, it makes sense in theory.
| monerozcash wrote:
| But it's not very hard to forge the application papers.
| Passport fraud is already not uncommon in Britain, people are
| getting authentic passports with cryptographic signatures
| using dishonest applications every single day.
| hdgvhicv wrote:
| So a forged or stolen id card will be impossible?
| incone123 wrote:
| Can't say until the implementation is revealed, but the
| person you replied to pointed out that fraud at the
| application stage is a problem.
| monerozcash wrote:
| That depends on the actual implementation of the
| checking. For example despite passports having chips,
| essentially no passport control is going to deny you
| entry if your genuine passport has a broken chip.
|
| So currently at least, a good forged passport will work
| everywhere except on e-gates. Although on the other hand
| actually procuring for example a decent forged
| polycarbonate passport (which most new EU passports are)
| is next to impossible, the printing techniques used
| require such expensive machinery that criminals simply
| don't have access to them.
|
| I've held probably thousands of forged passports, never
| seen a decent polycarbonate one. Perfect EU id cards you
| can find everywhere, a lot of them still printed on
| Teslin.
| logifail wrote:
| > It's presumably harder to forge a cryptographic signature
| than paper documents?
|
| Unless there is both serious pressure from the state and the
| population at large supports a massive increase in checking
| _and being checked_ I struggle to see this working.
|
| During the pandemic various countries experimented with
| mandating showing of QR codes to do stuff to "prove"
| compliance ... yet looking back on that, all it seems to have
| done is accelerate the erosion of trust in politicians and
| systems of government :/
| incone123 wrote:
| Checking for right to work has been legally required for
| over a decade. Checks in the formal economy are now
| routine. Can sometimes be a nuisance, like for my friend
| who doesn't have a passport and his driving license was
| issued before those went photographic.
| logifail wrote:
| > Checks in the formal economy are now routine
|
| Someone who is prepared to pay people smugglers to help
| them cross a border illegally may not choose to restrict
| themselves to working in "the formal economy".
|
| "Illegal working and streams of taxis - BBC gains rare
| access inside asylum hotels"
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy8ee2w73jo
| monerozcash wrote:
| > It's presumably harder to forge a cryptographic signature
| than paper documents
|
| For criminals it is already essentially impossible to forge
| new polycarbonate documents. Acquiring them by defrauding the
| application processes remains easy however.
|
| Of course, if the person checking doesn't know what the real
| document feels like in their hand, whether it's real
| polycarbonate or a shit laminated TESLIN fake makes little
| difference.
| wsc981 wrote:
| Of course a digital id doesn't prevent illegal immigration.
|
| Proper border checks prevent illegal immigration.
|
| The digital ids are introduced for other reasons - this is
| something Tony Blair has been pushing for a long time.
| derektank wrote:
| Proper border checks don't do much if people enter the
| country legally but overstay their visas
|
| IDs (along with verification laws) discourage employers from
| hiring unauthorized immigrants, and without access to gainful
| employment, many will opt to return to their country of
| origin, or choose not to come in the first place.
| arrowsmith wrote:
| You are describing the current system. Employers can
| receive business-ending fines (at least in theory) for
| hiring illegal labour. I've never worked a job in the UK
| that didn't require me to prove my right to work here, eg
| by showing them my passport. Digitising the IDs will make
| no difference.
|
| And frankly, if you believe this is actually about
| immigration then I'm embarrassed for you. Everyone can see
| that they're just using the current crisis an excuse to ram
| through the unpopular thing that they've wanted for
| decades.
|
| It won't stop the boats.
| incone123 wrote:
| I have never seen a report of a business ending because
| of a fine. I have seen reports of hospitality business
| having to close because they lost their alcohol licence,
| where the licencee employing illegal immigrants was
| deemed not to be a fit and proper person.
| arrowsmith wrote:
| On paper, the punishment for hiring illegal labour is
| PS45k per worker for the first offence and up to PS60k
| for repeat offences[0]. That's enough to ruin a small
| business.
|
| Whether or not these laws are actually enforced is
| another matter. [Insert obligatory reference to Turkish
| barbershops]. But I've been asked to show ID at every job
| I've ever had, so companies obviously care about it even
| if the risk is low.
|
| [0] source: https://www.irwinmitchell.com/news-and-
| insights/expert-comme...
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| > Insert obligatory reference to Turkish barbershops
|
| Is the implied assertion that the majority of Turkish
| traders are operating illegally?
| arrowsmith wrote:
| It's a popular stereotype in the UK (although it only
| seems to have arisen in the last year or so) that
| "Turkish barbershops" are a front for money laundering.
|
| They're certainly suspicious: all across the country,
| high street retailers are going bust, and yet somehow all
| these barbershops, nail salons, takeaway joints etc are
| staying in business, able to afford prime commercial real
| estate even though you never see anyone in there getting
| their hair cut or their nails done.
|
| I don't know why the Turks in particular are being
| singled out, but that's the meme. The "American Candy
| Stores" in London are another famous example.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| > barbershops, nail salons, takeaway joints
|
| There's an old saying where I'm from that the barbershop
| is the safest line of work because everyone needs their
| hair cut.
|
| Where I am, admittedly in the Netherlands but I grew up
| in the UK and haven't noticed a huge difference, nail
| salons are always quite full when I pass, and I see food
| delivery drivers almost every time I look out the window.
| Similarly the barbers always seem to have clients. Could
| be the time of day you look?
|
| Just going to throw it out there that it's a bit
| disconcerting to see these kind of criminal stereotypes
| associated with a certain people on HN.
| scott_w wrote:
| My understanding is that it makes checking job eligibility
| easier, so enforcement of non compliance is easier.
|
| A big source of illegal immigration is visa overstay (https:/
| /migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/un...),
| which ID can solve by tracking the visa status.
|
| There are benefits to UK citizens, such as being easier to
| open a bank account and to comply with Voter ID laws.
| amenhotep wrote:
| What a lovely framing that is. Since time immemorial our
| right to vote without having to present papers was prized
| and protected and caused no appreciable problems
| whatsoever. Then, finally, in one of these inevitable
| spasms of authoritarianism, they do away with it and we're
| now turned away from the polling station unless we can show
| our permission slip.
|
| Then they come up with even more papers for us, and the
| argument for it is that it's now a _benefit_ that we can
| more easily _comply with Voter ID laws_.
|
| Bugger off with that. Don't talk to me about any "benefit"
| in relation to voter ID that isn't abolishing it.
| scott_w wrote:
| > Since time immemorial our right to vote without having
| to present papers was prized and protected and caused no
| appreciable problems whatsoever.
|
| I don't disagree at all, however we are where we are. The
| laws were introduced by a different government in a
| failed bid to maintain power by disenfranchising voters
| less likely to have ID.
|
| That being said, we are where we are and having
| government-provided ID is a benefit in that context.
| vixen99 wrote:
| Only a day or two since this was announced and a petition
| against ID Cards has already reached 1 million - way
| beyond the 100,000 required for a Parliamentary Debate. I
| wonder what the petition's growth rate will be over the
| next couple of weeks or so.
| lmm wrote:
| > I watched the video and the suggestion is that this makes it
| easier for employers to verify that someone is authorized to
| work. Is that actually true?
|
| Yes. The rules are complex, and currently the government
| essentially deputizes employers and banks to enforce them;
| anyone running e.g. a restaurant is having to essentially guess
| whether a potential employee is in the UK legally or not, on
| pain of criminal charges if they get it wrong in one direction
| and discrimination lawsuits if they get it wrong in the other.
|
| I hate the UK surveillance state as much as anyone, but one-
| stop ID verification managed by the government is honestly less
| bad than the current patchwork. The banks are already
| "voluntarily" sharing everyone's identity information with the
| government, without any of the legal checks and balances that
| would apply to an official system.
|
| > If the idea is that a digital ID authorizes employment ...
| well I hope people can see the problem, here.
|
| Stop vagueposting. If you have something to say, say it.
| rtpg wrote:
| > anyone running e.g. a restaurant is having to essentially
| guess whether a potential employee is in the UK legally or
| not, on pain of criminal charges if they get it wrong in one
| direction and discrimination lawsuits if they get it wrong in
| the other.
|
| I don't get this. Is there nothing like some sort of number
| to register any tax withholding or the like? I imagine that
| tax authorities and immigration authorities don't actually
| cooperate together (and for good reason!) but my impression
| for places like the US is that you really do have to provide
| some sort of number provided by the government for most kinds
| of employment.
|
| Unless of course you're just not trying to pay payroll taxes
| I guess?
| logifail wrote:
| > some sort of number provided by the government
|
| There are countries where each citizen has one unique
| identifier (Sweden's "personnummer", Denmark's CPR).
|
| The UK is definitely not one of those! [yet]
|
| Instead there are many different identifiers, each for a
| different purpose, and stored in different systems which
| almost certainly don't talk to each other.
|
| Just for starters: NHS number for healthcare, National
| Insurance number for social security and pensions, Unique
| Taxpayer Reference for tax, Passport (with a number that
| changes when you renew your passport), Driving licence
| (with a "number"[alphanumeric] which stays constant even
| when you renew)...
|
| Multiple overlapping identifiers... and I may have missed
| some :)
| IanCal wrote:
| There is a number for this but it's not tied to your right
| to work. We have a mash of different systems.
|
| Here's what employers need to do currently:
| https://www.gov.uk/check-job-applicant-right-to-work
| lmm wrote:
| > Is there nothing like some sort of number to register any
| tax withholding or the like?
|
| There is, but it's not tied to any strong identity
| verification process, and so there's a thriving fraud where
| unemployed citizens will rent out their numbers to working
| illegals. It's not something that the tax office has ever
| really worried about, since if anything it tends to
| increase the amount of tax paid (if several people are
| sharing the same tax ID they'll pay a higher tax rate), and
| while they might bat an eye at someone with 5 different
| salaried jobs it's not particularly suspicious when it's
| gig economy work.
| ellen364 wrote:
| To work, you need to provide a National Insurance number,
| which is unique and tied to certain state benefits like
| pension. The idea is you work, pay "national insurance"
| contributions and accrue "contributing years" to get a
| state pension later.
|
| The wrinkle is that it doesn't seem to be tied well to
| identity. Someone working illegally can provide an NI
| number that's legit but not theirs. Their work accrues to
| someone else's NI record, but the person getting the extra
| years probably never notices and the person working under
| their NI number doesn't care because they aren't entitled
| to a state pension anyway, they just want to work now.
| rtpg wrote:
| OK, this makes sense to me. Clearly I lacked some
| imagination on this whole front
| incone123 wrote:
| Tax numbers have no bearing at all on your right to work.
| If you work legally in the UK for a while then you get a
| national insurance number but if you then leave and your
| work visa expires, your national insurance number remains
| as an identifier.
| viraptor wrote:
| If anything it could help legal immigration. There's a
| bootstrapping issue where you need a utility bill to open a
| bank account and a bank account to get paid and get paid to pay
| the utility bill. And also need all 3 to rent a property to
| live in. You can choose the right providers to work around that
| with just your passport, but that involves a bit of work and
| research.
|
| No idea how that would solve anything illegal though and
| realistically, I don't think they do either.
| monerozcash wrote:
| Presumably most legal immigrants already have bank accounts
| overseas and do not suffer from this bootstrapping issue.
| piperswe wrote:
| Good luck paying rent/utilities in the UK, or proving a UK
| address, with a foreign (especially non-SEPA) bank account
| cdsghh wrote:
| I have been doing so for years, never had a problem.
| viraptor wrote:
| You have not been proving your UK address with your
| account abroad. You may have used it for other purposes,
| but not that.
| cdsghh wrote:
| I have done that once too, just changed the account
| address to my UK address and printed a PDF statement. No
| problem whatsoever.
|
| But anyway, you can just get utilies and pay with foreign
| account. This gets you an utility bill.
| viraptor wrote:
| Most companies will not pay a local employee to an
| international amount. You're also going to pay quite large
| fees for any transfers if you wanted to pay bills. Also,
| the account abroad is not a proof of address in the UK
| which is the thing you want from statements.
| tpm wrote:
| Long time ago when I came to the UK I had that exact
| problem, there was only one bank (HSBC I think) that agreed
| to open an account for based on passport only. Even though
| I'm an EU citizen and UK was part of the EU at that time.
| Otherwise I would be stuck, because my employer (no
| employer I know of) would send my wage overseas.
| gethly wrote:
| > How does a digital ID solve an illegal immigration problem
|
| It does not. That is not what this is for. It is just how they
| are selling it to the public. Just like with age verification
| for porn sites to supposedly protect the children or how they
| limit your cache and financial transactions to supposedly fight
| money laundering and financing terrorism(what a joke).
|
| It's all about monitoring and controlling citizens offline and
| online to gain full control over their lives. Yes, it sounds
| Orwellian and no, it is not a joke.
|
| Digital wallets and money comes next. This way the government
| will be able to actually control your behavior.
|
| Why do they do that? Why not. It makes their lives easier as
| they do not have to be accountable to the people that voted for
| these public servants to manage the country and instead can
| push unpopular agendas by their puppeteers whom have private
| agendas of their own that usually, essentially always, goes
| against the well being of the population and nation itself.
|
| Politics has not changed since we first discovered fire. This
| is nothing new. We just have better technology.
| Lio wrote:
| I'm not sure how about illegal immigration but, coincidentally,
| it's really handy for tracking people's online activity when
| combined with the Online Safety Act.
|
| You know, coincidentally.
|
| (Oh, hold on I guess it helps with immigration numbers because
| people won't want to put up with this bullshit.)
| shortercode wrote:
| Every job I've worked in the last 10 years has asked to see my
| passport so they can check I'm allowed to work in this country.
| I expect employers who aren't checking don't care, and digital
| ID isn't going to change this.
| monerozcash wrote:
| Yeah, and they'll accept any document you buy from the
| internet for 5 quid that vaguely resembles a passport.
| mechanicum wrote:
| I don't think so, no. This is how it works today:
| https://www.gov.uk/check-job-applicant-right-to-work
|
| If your new hire is a British or Irish citizen, you ask for
| their passport on their first day and retain a photo/scan. In
| most cases this means that a layperson has to verify that the
| (possibly foreign) document is genuine, but I don't think fake
| passports are a statistically meaningful problem.
|
| If they have a visa or, probably most likely in recent years,
| EU right to remain, they will have a share code for online
| verification. That takes you to a page with their details and a
| passport-style photo that you can download as PDF for your
| records.
|
| Identifying whether someone has the right to work has never
| been a problem. If somebody is working illegally, it's because
| the employer is either knowingly employing them illegally, or
| doesn't care/bother to check (or even know that they're legally
| required to do so - a perennial problem with early stage
| startups in London, in my experience).
| tim333 wrote:
| Except there's no obligation to have a passport.
|
| That says if you don't you need a birth certificate and an
| official letter showing a national insurance number. I guess
| the new thing would substitute for that?
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| > Except there's no obligation to have a passport.
|
| No but if you don't have it then you can't show it.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| > How does a digital ID solve an illegal immigration problem?
|
| Remember that the "problem" is that it can be used as a
| political tool by outside parties like Reform. It helps this
| problem by allowing the Prime Minister and others to appear on
| TV pointing to strong measures they're implementing. The
| efficacy of the measures is beyond the attention span of
| someone watching the headlines.
| ninalanyon wrote:
| > How does a digital ID solve an illegal immigration problem?
|
| It doesn't. The kind of employer who would employ an illegal
| immigrant is certainly not going to ask to see ID of any kind.
| They would surely be especially wary of any electronic ID
| because that would make it easier to associate them with the
| immigrant. ID cards are only of any use to legal workers and
| honest employers.
|
| If the UK wants the benefits of a solid ID it should look to
| Scandinavia. In Norway everyone has a unique number in the
| population register and this ID is your user ID for all state
| services. Employers can ask for this number and look you up. Of
| course it still doesn't prevent people working on the black for
| cash in hand but neither will an ID card or ID app.
|
| There is no appetite for ID cards in Norway either, yet
| successive governments keep pushing the idea despite there
| being no compelling reason to believe that any problems will be
| solved by them.
| OgsyedIE wrote:
| So this applies to sectarian areas of Northern Ireland as well as
| every other part of the UK, then.
| petesergeant wrote:
| You appear to have buried the point you're trying to make here
| dmoo wrote:
| Absolutely, calling it a 'Brit' card will make it wildly
| unpopular in certain areas let alone the headaches in terms
| of the common travel area and the Good Friday agreement.
| lawlessone wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement#:~:text=.
| ..
|
| >Article 1 (vi), commonly referred to as the birthright
| provisions, states that both governments, "Recognise the
| birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify
| themselves and be accepted as Irish, or British, or both
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| It's just so frakking disappointing for a there to finally be a
| huge labor landslide in 2024 then for their leaders to turn
| around and be ongoingly in bed just the same with right wing
| fascism. There was such a clear mandate for something different
| something better something good, and it's such a stark betrayal,
| such a vile repudiation than republicanism is ever going to be
| acceptable to see such a mass betrayal such a hard sell out. To
| Palantir grade fascist information overloading control that Kier
| would commit to. Ugly gross time line of no good. One would kind
| of hope winning elections might meet something better than right
| wing fascist over-control, but no, not here. Disgraceful.
| monsecchris wrote:
| Right wing are against this.
| jameslk wrote:
| Finally, a digital form of "papers, please"
| mikelward wrote:
| Glory to Arstotzka.
| m2f2 wrote:
| I just wonder how widespread fraud is without any form of ID. A
| fake utility bill is just a few clicks away on my PC.
|
| Govt surveillance? I'm much more worried by the ever increasing
| number of cameras in the streets rather than something similar to
| having a passport to prove who you really are.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| I didn't watch the video, but have read other reports, and it's
| worth noting that the context for this is the Labour Party
| conference, which starts on Sunday. The UK govt are under
| pressure from the tories and Reform to do something about people
| entering the UK from France by crossing the channel in small
| boats. Nothing much seems to be working. So this announcement is
| about trying to control the narrative by making a big,
| distracting announcement. I'd mlbe surprised if many people in
| the government/police/civil service expect it to make a
| difference.
|
| Also, seems to be intended to be mandatory and require a
| smartphone. Hows that going to work?
|
| Also, what happens when the database is inevitably stolen?
| arrowsmith wrote:
| "Nothing much seems to be working" because the government is
| completely unserious about stopping the boats and is unwilling
| to do any of the things that might actually work.
|
| They could stop them in a week if they actually wanted to.
| hdgvhicv wrote:
| The larger problem is 10 times as many arrive via Heathrow.
| That's what causes the pressure on local services, from
| housing to GPs to transport.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Legally and morally? What is your solution?
| arrowsmith wrote:
| Stick them in processing centres until they can be
| deported. Send a clear message to anyone who might come
| that it won't work, you won't get in, we won't give you
| anything, don't risk your life or waste your money.
|
| Australia did exactly this (in the face of howling
| opposition) and it worked: illegal boat arrivals dropped
| from ~20,000 per year to almost zero. Thousands of people
| used to drown attempting the crossing, now no-one drowns.
| There's your moral case.
|
| Legally, Parliament is sovereign. If the current legal
| framework doesn't allow it, change the law. Except they
| won't, because they don't want to solve the problem and
| they use the law as an excuse as if they aren't the fucking
| _government_.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| I'm genuinely wondering how harsh you'd be willing to be
| to get what you want.
|
| What would you do if an individual can't be deported
| because no country will accept them? Or if their country
| of origin is likely to kill or torture them? Or if no
| commercial carrier is willing to risk operating to that
| country? Would you be willing to deport unaccompanied
| children with no guarantee that they'd be cared for?
| diordiderot wrote:
| This is a perniciously xenophobic take, tbh. Who are you
| to decide your values are objectively better than theirs?
| /s
|
| There is a village A dragon comes to the village every
| year. In exchange for 2% of the children, it spares the
| rest and promises its "magical" protection from unseen
| enemies. This arrangement has lasted 2,000 years. Most
| villagers worship it, even though the custom has left
| their village far worse off than others in the land.
|
| Some villagers move away. Not all of them are dragon-
| worshippers, but some are and they still try to summon
| the dragon.
|
| Now the dragon free villagers face a choice:
|
| Keep them out. But that means some innocent children
| among them will die.
|
| Let them in. Risk the cult spreading again inside the
| walls and possibly bringing the dragon back.
|
| Go kill the dragon themselves. Accept substantial
| casualties including innocent dragon worshippers and some
| of their own people.
|
| Killing the dragon would mean temporarily brutal
| treatment of the worshippers and the destruction of their
| culture, but it would spare future generations from an
| unbounded amount of suffering.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| I'm really not sure what point you're making here. What
| is the "dragon" in irregular migration. What is the
| "village"?
| diordiderot wrote:
| It isn't hard to parse. If you're very literal minded,
| forget the mapping and just engage with the story on its
| own terms, then we can parse it.
|
| Otherwise, I can only assume the trade offs are too
| uncomfortable (cognitive dissonance, you're a gentle
| soul!) or it's a bad-faith feint to shift the burden
| while posing as "too rational" to engage.
|
| No analogy is perfect. The question is whether the trade
| off it illustrates applies. Engage with that.
| arrowsmith wrote:
| All the more reason for them to stay in France.
|
| The humane option is still available. It's not too late
| to take it. But if you keep refusing it, don't complain
| when you get something else.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| Its not clear what your "humane option" is. Care to
| explain?
| calcifer wrote:
| What are the options legally available to them? They have
| their own experts, but it sounds like you have a novel idea
| that hasn't occurred to anyone before.
| arrowsmith wrote:
| > legally
|
| They're the ones who make the laws?
| diordiderot wrote:
| I love how Brits take laws/rules so seriously but spend
| absolutely no time thinking _about_ the rules. How
| they're made, 2nd order consequences etc
| rich_sasha wrote:
| The small boats crossing are a small fraction of immigration.
| Some Google number claims 37k people got in this way in 2024.
| With _net_ migration hovering around 0.8-1m people per year,
| _arrivals_ must be well above this number (surely some people
| are leaving, making the net number smaller). But even then,
| this is less than 5% of the legal immigration, and probably a
| lot less than that.
|
| I'm not saying it doesn't need addressing or isn't serious, but
| I think it's a convenient topic for politicians. It's a lot
| more media-friendly than the arrivals queue at Luton Airport.
| And the illegal immigrants aren't the ones putting pressure on
| NHS, housing market or train driver unions.
| TheChaplain wrote:
| Uhm are you sure about those numbers?
|
| 0.8m is like on the average a whole county in the UK, and
| such massive influx would destroy the housing- and job
| market. Not to mention pressure on schools and healthcare.
| keanb wrote:
| What do you think is happening to those markets?
| anal_reactor wrote:
| The actual number is like half of that because while 800k
| people came, about 400k people left.
|
| I am an immigrant myself but I start to think that such
| policies are short-sighted. The end result is often
| fragmentation of the society, because immigrants rarely
| truly integrate, and at some point they become the
| majority, and then you're effectively a minority in your
| own country. It takes at least two generations for
| newcomers to become fully integrated, and that assumes
| things going right.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| The migration numbers are _net_ so I believe this is
| arrivals _minus_ departures (or someone has a very weird
| definition of net).
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Exactly, this is what I am saying. The 0.8-1m number is the
| _legal, net_ migration into the UK, very significant, and
| adding to the downsides people associate with immigration.
| It 's not all downsides etc etc but still.
|
| The 37k small boats migration is very small in comparison.
| Plus there's illegal immigration not via small boats -
| overstayed visas etc.
|
| Hence my point that the overfocus on small boats crossings
| seems misplaced to me.
| MrToadMan wrote:
| Depends on if you are looking at this in terms of numbers of
| people or cost. The Home Office annual spend on processing
| asylum seekers has ballooned from just under PS1 billion to
| near PS5 billion in the space of 5 years, which is 1/3 of the
| estimated PS14 billion raised from the unpopular National
| Insurance increase.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| This does indeed seem like a crazy high number.
|
| Even then, what fraction of all asylum seekers comes via
| small boats, vs other means? I believe the UK is entirely
| within its right to send small boats asylum seekers back to
| France, since it is a safe country. International
| conventions on asylum seekers state this - you are not
| entitled to drive thru the whole of Europe then demand
| asylum specifically in the UK.
|
| I don't want to come across as uncaring, I'm sure there are
| tragedies that drive people to doing this, that doesn't
| mean the UK has to also mismanage the process on its side.
| detaro wrote:
| The UK was indeed part of treaty system that meant other
| states had to "take back" asylum seekers that traveled
| through them to the UK, but it decided it was in its best
| interest to quit that a few years ago, so France is a lot
| less motivated to do that now.
| MrToadMan wrote:
| From what I've read, about 1/3 of all asylum seekers over
| the last 7 years arrived via small boat crossings.
|
| Looking forward though, about 90% of those arriving in
| small boat crossings are currently going on to seek
| asylum and the average annual cost of supporting an
| asylum seeker during their claim has risen to an
| estimated PS41k, so for ~30k arrivals this year, the
| financial cost of not processing these claims promptly
| could increase that overall annual bill further still.
|
| Also, in the first year of processing, costs may be drawn
| from the overseas aid budget (which was recently shrunk).
| This results in possibly 1/5 of the overseas aid budget
| being used for costs associated with processing asylum
| claims, which perhaps doesn't match most people's
| expectations as to what overseas aid should be used for.
|
| I think that's why even though the number of people
| involved in these crossings is small compared to net
| migration, it has a big financial impact.
| foldr wrote:
| We keep getting told that these people are predominantly
| young men of working age.
|
| If only someone could come up with a brilliant idea which
| might allow them to make a long-term contribution to the
| economy far in excess of the cost of processing their
| asylum applications...
| jacobp100 wrote:
| Net migration is expected to be 200k in 2026
| mrob wrote:
| It's incredibly misleading to call a phone app a "card". This is
| much worse than it sounds. Am I going to be forced to buy a
| smartphone? Am I going to be forced to run non-Free software? Am
| I going to be forced to enter into a restrictive contract with a
| foreign corporation?
| octo888 wrote:
| Hah this is the UK. No, it'll be optional to begin with to make
| people like you asking important questions seem like a whacko.
| Then once they use propaganda to make people opt into it, and
| it reaches mass adoption, then it'll quietly be made mandatory
| - or extremely annoying not to have it
| LinAGKar wrote:
| No, it will be mandatory right from the start, and employers
| will be required to check it
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/digital-id-
| ca...
| octo888 wrote:
| Are you suggesting they will draft the law in such a way
| that in order not to be fired people must download this
| thing onto a smartphone and show it to their employer,
| post-haste? Your link does not support any evidence of that
| (the line " will be mandatory for every worker in the UK"
| links to just another one of their own articles, which also
| does not support it). I imagine it'll be phased in for new
| employment.
|
| No, it won't be mandatory in all situations all at once,
| for every facet of life (I did not specify employment).
| kypro wrote:
| Yep. It's literally always this way. It's starts with "we
| hope everyone will do the right thing". To, "it's concerning
| some people are refusing to do their part". To finally, "do
| it now or we'll lock you in a cage".
| madaxe_again wrote:
| Headline (here and on Sky) is clickbait - should read that this
| is a _PROPOSAL_.
|
| This is a proposal at a party conference, not law. Previous
| initiatives along these lines have not come to pass, and this is
| unlikely to as well.
|
| Expect universal rejection by the tories, lib dems and reform in
| parliament, purely because it's a Labour initiative, and expect
| plenty of Labour MPs to disobey the whip.
|
| From the BBC this morning:
|
| "Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch calls it a "desperate
| gimmick", while the Lib Dems fear it would force people to turn
| over their private data"
|
| If it does somehow get beyond the commons, expect lords to quash
| it.
|
| I give this about a 20% chance of actually coming to pass.
| bumseltagbaerbi wrote:
| Vote Labour respectively a "people's worker party", get this.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| ID cards were already brought in under Labour about 20 years
| ago - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10164331.
|
| They would have allowed EU travel without a passport, but sadly
| didn't take off. Initially they would have incorporated driving
| licenses too - lots of people already carry a driver's license.
|
| Ironically I've of the reasons for not having them, back in the
| noughties, was because it would target minorities.
|
| Now, the right wing are beying for blood over immigration,
| national IDs do seems like they would reduce the ability of
| illegal immigrants to work/collect benefits. Tories left a
| massive immigration problem, exacerbated by Brexit.
| gorgoiler wrote:
| I hope the card will include an asymmetric digital signature from
| a government authority. That way, concerned members of the public
| will be able to verify anyone else's Brit Card.
|
| This would in turn enable citizen-operated checkpoints to verify
| the Britishness of food delivery drivers, mosque worshipers,
| suspected pedos, anyone who smells a bit too much like curry or
| garlic, or blokes what look funny like they aint from round ere.
|
| Marvellous! /s
| r0ckarong wrote:
| Gotta track those breadlines
| zkmon wrote:
| Reminds me a scene in "Friends" - people boarding an airplane
| asking the crew "Did you fix the issue of missing Falange?"; "Yes
| sir, we fixed it!"
| arrowsmith wrote:
| Digital IDs will be used to restrict your internet access.
|
| They'll roll them out gradually. You won't need one at first.
| You'll still show your passport, driving license etc, until one
| day you give up because the digital version is convenient and you
| "might as well". What's your problem? Why do you care? Have you
| got something to hide?
|
| Then they'll attack the easiest target: porn. We already have
| age-verification laws, implemented through dodgy third-party
| providers. But now everyone has digital government ID: we "might
| as well" unify things so all the porn sites check your age using
| the centralised government system. What's your problem? Why do
| you care? Won't you THINK OF THE CHILDREN??? You want to let
| CHILDREN watch PORN???
|
| Then comes online retail. After all, the Southport killer bought
| his knife from Amazon -- that was the front page headline on
| every paper, remember how organic and uncoordinated that was? It
| could all have been avoided with better age verification. And
| hey, we already have a way to verify age with our digital IDs. We
| "might as well". What's your problem? Why do you care? You want
| to let CHILDREN buy KNIVES?
|
| And what about social media? Kids shouldn't use Facebook, it's
| bad for them. Australia already bans under 16s from social media.
| We already have age verification for other things. We "might as
| well". WHY DO YOU CARE????? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
|
| Oh, that's handy, everyone's social media accounts are now tied
| to their real identities. That'll come in handy when people say
| nasty things that the government doesn't like. After all, those
| riots only happened because of "misinformation". Why do you
| _need_ to stay anonymous anyway? What 's the problem? Why do you
| care? Got something to hide? You're in favour of HATE SPEECH??
|
| The slippery slope has never been more lubricated.
| ghusto wrote:
| That all sounds plausible, but why doesn't it happen in other
| EU countries where digital ID is required?
| wartywhoa23 wrote:
| Because one has to timelapse things in order to perceive the
| advances of incrementalism
| xyzzy3000 wrote:
| The petition against this has so far managed to surpass the one
| opposing online age verification:
|
| https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194
| aftergibson wrote:
| I look forward to Parliament's long-worded "no." These
| petitions often seem more about managing dissent than enabling
| meaningful change.
| tim333 wrote:
| Presenter:
|
| >digital id will be made mandatory for all adults in an effort to
| tackle small boats
|
| WTF? It's obvious when a small boat of Africans turns up they are
| not Brits and making Brits carry ID will make zero difference
| there.
| tempodox wrote:
| One step closer to 24/7 total surveillance. Once this is
| established, they'll make it mandatory for using web sites, chat
| apps, etc...
| jjgreen wrote:
| Before the election I was approached by a bubbly young woman who
| tried to persuade me to vote Labour: "No thanks, last time I did
| that they tried to introduce ID cards", "But that's not in our
| manifesto" she replied, "It wasn't the last time I voted for them
| either".
|
| It gives me no pleasure to be right on this.
| celticninja wrote:
| Could you explain what it is you find so distasteful about ID
| cards?
|
| I mean if you have a passport then you already have an 'ID
| card', but I certainly don't want to take that out with me to
| prove my age.
| jjgreen wrote:
| Could you please give me your real name "celticninja", your
| phone number, your address, your NI number -- oh, and you'll
| need to install this app on your phone which I _promise_ will
| never be used to monitor your location, purchases, friends.
| Then I 'll explain.
| gadders wrote:
| Also, please authenticate with your digital ID before
| posting on social media.
| tedk-42 wrote:
| And we never heard from then again. Case in point of how
| someone likes something in theory but in practice it's
| distasteful.
| celticninja wrote:
| That is not a requirement though. And if it came in I
| would be against it. So what is your point?
| pjc50 wrote:
| Yet. This slope looks very slippery in the year of the
| Online Safety Act.
| ruszki wrote:
| With your logic, everything can be used, or change to be
| used in a bad way, so nothing should be changed. There is
| never a guarantee. Seriously, is there anything which
| cannot be changed to be shit, in the best case to be a
| worthless money pit?
|
| Edit: btw this proposal already has something which can
| be criticised: ID on mobile phones... so probably they'd
| lock everybody into a duopoly.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| You're arguing that the installation of a literal
| surveillance apparatus should be tolerated because
| technology can almost always be used for evil.
| array_key_first wrote:
| Yes, let's build the nuke and then put it in the center
| of London with a big red button. But don't worry, nobody
| will push the button.
|
| Or, proposal B: don't build the nuke.
| gadders wrote:
| Like they wouldn't bring it in to combat "mis-
| information" i.e. viewpoints they don't like.
| EasyMark wrote:
| What do you have to hide? Why are you against adding just
| a little more to the law to protect the children?
| tempodox wrote:
| Not even a joke, but only a question of time.
| amaccuish wrote:
| Reductio ad absurdum.
| opless wrote:
| Not really. British governments have always been
| increasingly authoritarian.
|
| The stated reason is to stop illegals working.
|
| Unfortunately we have an ID for working, called a
| national insurance number. We literally can't get legally
| paid without it.
|
| So a National ID card ... Is irrelevant. You still need
| this number for benefits, etc.
|
| I've got an NI number, a driving license and a passport.
| Not to mention a NHS number.
|
| I don't need another form of identification to link
| together everything about me so my government can leak
| everywhere.
| pjc50 wrote:
| NI is not ID for working. It's a tax identifier.
|
| The ID for working system is https://www.gov.uk/prove-
| right-to-work , with its digital ID "share code"
| https://www.gov.uk/view-right-to-work
|
| (what does the digital ID scheme add to this again?)
| opless wrote:
| Yes, and to be paid via PAYE you need a NI number.
|
| The prove right to work is a slightly newer thing thats
| additional
| mnahkies wrote:
| The nuance is that you can have a NI number, then have
| your visa lapse for whatever reason - you still have the
| NI number. Hence the requirement to prove your right to
| work through another means.
|
| Previously you could use proof of British nationality or
| a physical biometric residence card - but they've been
| replaced by the digital share code system (which tbh
| hasn't been too bad)
| IanCal wrote:
| No, those are still the ways of proving you have the
| right to work, it's only if you're not a national that
| you need the share code.
| mnahkies wrote:
| Sorry I worded that poorly - I was trying to make the
| point that citizens prove their right to work using
| passport/birth certificate, and until recently visa
| holders used a physical BRP, and now a digital system
| (which oddly enough uses your expired/redundant BRP
| number as a username)
| IanCal wrote:
| The share code stuff is not for nationals. It's not clear
| to me exactly how it works and whether it's scalable.
| arjie wrote:
| Interesting. We could turn it into a logical argument
| just so we can see if this is the case. The course of the
| argument is:
|
| > _Could you explain what is so distasteful about ID
| cards? "_
|
| which is roughly how humans say "ID cards are okay" (P0)
|
| > _I mean if you have a passport then you already have an
| 'ID card', but I certainly don't want to take that out
| with me to prove my age._
|
| which is roughly how humans say "We already collect
| information that would be on an ID card and store it
| against a passport" (P1) provided only for completeness
| because it is not used later
|
| > _" Could you please give me your real name
| "celticninja", your phone number, your address, your NI
| number -- oh, and you'll need to install this app on your
| phone which I promise will never be used to monitor your
| location, purchases, friends. Then I'll explain."_
|
| which is roughly how humans say "If (ID cards are okay)
| (P0 again) then (there should be no problem sharing that
| information with me, a stranger) (P2). But (there should
| be no problem sharing the information with me, a
| stranger) (P2 again) - is absurd"
|
| Therefore, if all of these were logical, then indeed this
| is a valid proof that ID cards are not okay by _reductio
| ad absurdum_ , a valid proof technique.
|
| I suppose the gap in the argument is in the logical
| statement P0 => P2. If some chain of argument could
| provide P0 => P2 then this would indeed be a valid proof
| of the falsehood of P0 by _reductio ad absurdum_ to P2 an
| absurd conclusion. Of course I wrote it out to
| illustrate, but it was obvious it was _reductio ad
| absurdum_.
|
| It just strikes me as curious that someone would point
| that out. A bit like saying "syllogism" when someone
| makes a one-step logical conclusion, which is not
| something that humans usually post on web forums. Then
| again, if you say "Knowledge is power" someone will
| inevitably say "France is bacon" ;) so there's a bit of
| an ability to prompt things out of human beings that only
| has phatic purpose. Perhaps Latin, in particular, draws
| this out of someone but I'd think it odd if people went
| around saying "quod erat demonstrandum" in replies to
| someone who proved something.
| tpxl wrote:
| > Could you please give me your real name "celticninja",
| your phone number, your address, your NI number
|
| The police can and will request this information from you,
| digital ID or not. If you have actual beef with digital ID,
| present it.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| No, police cannot.
|
| The government is pushing Digital IDs on rubbish claims
| (obviously won't do anything about illegal immigration).
| Everyone can see that.
|
| So what does this mean about their actual aims?
| pjc50 wrote:
| They can certainly ask, but at the moment can they jail
| you simply for not answering?
| GeoAtreides wrote:
| yes. yes they can.
|
| They'll invoke one of the more ambiguous sections, it's
| usually the anti-terrorism one, but sometimes is the
| anti-drugs one (i can't remember the numbers), and
| they'll detain then arrest you and haul you to the police
| station.
|
| You can complain later, and maybe get some pounds out of
| it, but make no mistake: if the uk police wants you
| identified, they will identify you.
| ratelimitsteve wrote:
| there's a difference between "the police can request this
| information from an individual" and "this information
| will be automatically gathered from everyone at all times
| and stored by the state". for one, there are
| circumstances in which the police are allowed to request
| that information and you can say "no", and there are also
| practical limits to the number of police that can be out
| requesting. The central equivalence you're trying to draw
| here is simply false.
| EasyMark wrote:
| Especially when they drop NFC into it and put up
| observation posts around the city
| lxgr wrote:
| What does any of that have to do with an ID _card_?
|
| Many countries have had ID cards for decades, yet don't
| have any digital ID system whatsoever.
| array_key_first wrote:
| Nothing but I thought we were talking about digital id.
| lxgr wrote:
| At least three comment levels up from mine are about ID
| cards, not digital ID.
| pjc50 wrote:
| It all depends on exactly when they're mandatory and what
| tracking is associated with them.
|
| My own personal thinking has evolved on the subject since I
| campaigned against ID cards under Blair ("no2id"). It is a
| question of trust and purpose. Things like the Estonian
| digital identity scheme do not seem to be bad in practice.
| The problem comes from identity checkpoints, which serve as
| an opportunity for inconvenience, surveillance, and
| negligence by the authorities.
|
| Remember the "computer is never wrong" Fujitsu scandal? The
| Windrush fiasco (itself a story of identity and records)?
|
| And anything born of an immigration crackdown is coming out
| of the gate with a declared intention to be paranoid and
| authoritarian.
| jodrellblank wrote:
| > " _Remember the "computer is never wrong" Fujitsu
| scandal?_"
|
| For anyone outside the UK who doesn't know this reference,
| the UK Post Office (originally the state postal system,
| privatised by this time) paid Fujitsu to build a computer
| system. It had bugs which made it look like money was going
| missing. The bugs were reported, and ignored. The Post
| Office prosecuted employees for theft and fraud over
| _sixteen years_ , ruining hundreds of lives and
| reputations, sending hundreds of people to prison, and
| causing some suicides.
|
| It eventually came out as an investigative journalism story
| that the system was at fault, the people were innocent, and
| the Post Office knew about the bugs right from the start
| and had been hiding them from the police/courts. "In 2024,
| Prime Minister Rishi Sunak described the scandal as one of
| the greatest miscarriages of justice in British history"
| that's almost 10 years after it ended and 25 years after it
| started, rather too late to undo all the harm.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal
| ascorbic wrote:
| I've had a very similar journey. I also campaigned against
| them, rejoiced when the hard drives were shredded after the
| election. I am now less worried. The devil is in the
| detail, and the issue last time was in the database rather
| than the cards. That said, I think since then we have
| bigger concerns, and if an ID app alleviates some concerns
| about immigration then I'm fine with it. One big thing that
| has happened since then is GDS - the various GOV.UK apps
| tend to be actually good. I recently used the new GOV.UK
| One Login app to renew my driving licence and it was
| impressively good.
| GJim wrote:
| > to prove my age
|
| If you want to prove your age, there are a host of
| *voluntary* forms of identity you can carry if you wish to do
| so. Please tell me how a new *compulsory* scheme (with
| privacy invading overreach) is going to help you.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| I mean most pubs only allows passports and driving
| licenses. the latter has a compulsion to keep it updated.
| v3xro wrote:
| And even then you're never asked for it if you look over
| 25. Which is fair - if in doubt, verify, but usually you
| don't need to give over your *identity* to a place that
| serves alcohol.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| >I mean if you have a passport then you already have an 'ID
| card',
|
| So why do we need this digital ID then?
| v3xro wrote:
| I am sure by now it has been explained by others. But
| basically - an ID document is like a bearer token that does
| not need to call a central authority every time it is
| verified. I am sure there are cases where it is, but a
| digital token that is linked to location _every time_ it is
| verified is a quite different thing. Currently in the UK the
| law states that ultimately only a court can force you to
| identify yourself - by which time hopefully the purpose for
| which identification is being done is quite a serious and
| valid one. Making it cheaper to track people is not exactly a
| goal worth pursuing in my (not so humble) opinion.
|
| To add to this - there is very rarely in my mind a need for
| someone to actually _identify_ themselves - there are plenty
| of examples where it 's useful for *audit* purposes to have a
| record, or to have a role-based credential to be able to _do_
| a thing, but *identity*?
| EasyMark wrote:
| Should be used for basic things like driving a car or signing
| up for a government service. Should be used to determine if
| you can make money to survive on or walk down the street
| without being stopped to very that you as a brown person are
| legit. "What are you doing in this part of town? Your sort
| isn't usually around this area"
| ninalanyon wrote:
| What I find distasteful about them is the lies and
| prevarications that surround them.
| blipvert wrote:
| It's not an ID card.
| jama211 wrote:
| It was introduced by the Tories, supported by both parties, and
| you live in a place with FPTP voting. Not voting for labour
| isn't going to help anything except give more power to the
| others who are worse.
| platipusiton wrote:
| What the hell is with these overly-draconian bills prioritizing
| control over individual rights being passed as of late?! The
| online safety act & now this. Our private right to anonymity &
| privacy has utterly gone out the window at this point...
| celticninja wrote:
| I don't think this is on a par with the online safety act. That
| was fundamentally flawed. This isn't a huge issue and the
| benefits for ease of access to government services is a
| positive step. One thing that users of government services face
| is the need to provide documentation that supports their
| request. This can be an impediment to users accessing services
| that they are entitled to in a timely manner.
|
| The biggest risk is from a data breach and this information
| being accessed by unauthorized parties, but that is something
| all online services are at risk from. The absolute worst way to
| implement this will be to contract it out to a third party. If
| it is built and maintained by civil servant developers who have
| already proved their mettle with a variety of govuk services
| then I would have confidence in it. If it is farmed out to
| Fujitsu or some other 3rd party then it will be an shithshow
| and an expensive one at that.
| jjgreen wrote:
| It will be fine
| https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366631525/Our-worst-
| day-...
| platipusiton wrote:
| What's the point of easier access if it comes at the cost of
| our rights?
|
| The potential for BritCard to be used for surveillance
| outweighs the benefits of convenience tenfold... Privacy is
| not something we should compromise for easier access to
| services- what starts as a way to "streamline services" can
| quickly turn into a horrible mechanism for tracking citizens
| under the guise of security..
| drcongo wrote:
| It'll be handed to Palantir. Starmer has run out of things to
| sell off to billionaires and the only reason this bill exists
| is so he can sell off the actual citizens too.
| johnjump wrote:
| Couldn't agree more.
|
| For reference:
|
| https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-strategic-
| partnership...
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Is it getting a little too obvious it's coordinated?
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| This is a plan so we shall see what happens...
|
| This is widely unpopular because the idea of ID cards is
| unpopular in general in the UK and the people also clearly
| understand that the argument that this would combat illegal
| immigration is total rubbish. Even the comments on The Guardian's
| website are overwhelmingly negative, which should really tell the
| government something.
|
| The proposal is also drastic because it would be _de facto_
| mandatory for all residents. It 's hilarious and pathetic to see
| the government argue that it wouldn't be mandatory, just only
| needed to get a job (which probably means also mandatory to rent
| and to study)...
|
| An unpopular government trying to out-do itself.
| celticninja wrote:
| Id cards are not unpopular with the general public. That's just
| what the daily mail wants you to think.
|
| https://bsky.app/profile/samfr.bsky.social/post/3lzq2w3ovgk2...
| surgical_fire wrote:
| This is HN, it is unsurprising that you will find complaints
| of people who think governments are icky. You know, the usual
| libertarian bullshit.
|
| I lived in countries that have mandatory unique IDs, and
| countries that don't. Typically the countries that do not are
| more a pain in the ass to deal with, because institutions
| will proxy to the next best thing in the absense of an actual
| ID, typically documents that are not mandatory and not
| supposed to be used as ID, but end up being used like that
| anyway.
| pjc50 wrote:
| There's three separate questions:
|
| - is it a good idea to tie various public records together
| under a unique ID
|
| - is it a good idea to issue voluntary ID for those
| situations where people need to prove it
|
| and the big, third one:
|
| - where is this going to be made mandatory and under what
| circumstances will it be used against people?
| surgical_fire wrote:
| > - is it a good idea to tie various public records
| together under a unique ID
|
| Generally, yes. It simplifies dealing with government
| bureaucracy. Proving your identity is generally something
| you will have to do anyway, this is will just remove a
| bunch of hoops you have to go through.
|
| > - is it a good idea to issue voluntary ID for those
| situations where people need to prove it
|
| One of the countries I lived in had a system similar to
| this one. It worked fine - typically you only needed this
| ID when opening a bank account or registered for work.
| Originally it was a tax registration ID (which is why it
| was related to banking and working), but it was secure
| enough that it was later repurposed as the actual unique
| ID. Nowadays I think they issue one to every registered
| person (e.g. newborns).
|
| > - where is this going to be made mandatory and under
| what circumstances will it be used against people?
|
| We are talking about the government here, who has the
| monopoly of force. If you live in an authoritarian
| country where the government fucks over citizens, they
| will do it to you irrespective of you having a mandatory
| ID or not.
|
| My actual main concern is the level of access private
| corporations have to the records tied to this unique ID.
| I am highly suspicious of corporations (e.g.: banks,
| healthcare providers, etc).
| GJim wrote:
| > Id cards are not unpopular with the general public.
|
| At the time of writing, 1,017,754 British people have already
| signed the official petition opposing them; a petition that
| has only been running a matter of hours.
|
| https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194
| zahllos wrote:
| One of my concerns with this is the assumption that every adult
| has a suitable smartphone. Do the government plan to hand them
| out?
| GJim wrote:
| A smartphone running software beholden to one of two American
| companies.
|
| Do you see the flaw here!
| pjc50 wrote:
| A smartphone is going to be mandatory for employment!
| paperpunk wrote:
| From the linked page:
|
| > In designing the digital ID scheme, the government will
| ensure that it works for those who aren't able to use a
| smartphone, with inclusion at the heart of its design.
| brianmcc wrote:
| The technologically inept get QR codes tattooed on their
| foreheads.
| sharperguy wrote:
| It won't fit on my head next to my POOR IMPULSE CONTROL
| tattoo.
| zahllos wrote:
| Please don't give them ideas!
| zahllos wrote:
| I guess we'll have to wait for specifics. Unfortunately "it
| will have inclusion at its core" doesn't really say much.
|
| They are considering enabling its use for more than just
| work, so what happens when my grandma forgets to charge her
| phone before her doctors' appointment?
|
| What happens if you want to give teenagers a dumb phone
| because you as a parent decide a smartphone isn't
| appropriate, but they need the ID for the NHS too?
| eesmith wrote:
| What of people like me who are able to use a smartphone but
| are unwilling to?
|
| It's not just the elderly and homeless as mentioned on the
| page, but also those with religious objections, members of
| the digital disconnection movement, those concerned about
| electromagnetic hypersensitivity, and so on.
|
| Should there a right to an offline life for the simple reason
| that you want live offline? A right which is protected in a
| few other places in Europe, at least to some extent when it
| concerns government services.
| Retr0id wrote:
| I guess the alternative will just be username and password
| entered into some online portal?
| aftergibson wrote:
| A secure, optional digital ID could be useful. But not in today's
| UK. Why? Because the state has already shown it can't be trusted
| with our data.
|
| - Snoopers' Charter (Investigatory Powers Act 2016): ISPs must
| keep a year's worth of records of which websites you visit. More
| than 40 agencies--from MI5 to the Welsh Ambulance Service--can
| request it. MI5 has already broken the rules and kept data it
| shouldn't have.
|
| - Encryption backdoors: Ministers can issue "Technical Capability
| Notices" to force tech firms to weaken or bypass end-to-end
| encryption.
|
| - Online Safety Act: Expands content-scanning powers that experts
| warn could undermine privacy for everyone.
|
| - Palantir deals: The government has given PS1.5 billion+ in
| contracts to a US surveillance firm that builds predictive-
| policing tools and runs the NHS's new Federated Data Platform.
| Many of those deals are secret.
|
| - Wall-to-wall cameras: Millions of CCTV cameras already make the
| UK one of the most surveilled countries in the world.
|
| A universal digital ID would plug straight into this ecosystem,
| creating an always-on, uniquely identified record of where you go
| and what you do. Even if paper or card options exist on paper,
| smartphone-based systems will dominate in practice, leaving those
| without phones excluded or coerced.
|
| I'm not against digital identity in principle. But until the UK
| government proves it can protect basic privacy--by rolling back
| mass data retention, ending encryption backdoor demands, and
| enforcing genuine oversight--any national digital ID is a
| surveillance power-grab waiting to happen.
|
| I'm certain it's worked well in other countries, but I have zero
| trust in the UK government to handle this responsibility.
| octo888 wrote:
| Very well said
| ghusto wrote:
| Was reading through your post, finding it difficult to find
| fault with anything you were saying, but something wasn't
| sitting right. And then ...
|
| > I'm certain it's worked well in other countries
|
| It has! In the Netherlands for example, it's just an incredibly
| convenient system, and if there's anything dodgy going on I'm
| not aware of it.
|
| So what makes the UK so different to the Netherlands? Genuine
| question, because I really don't know. My only guess is that
| the people of the Netherlands hold their politicians to
| account, whereas nothing ever seems to happen to UK politicians
| whose corruption is so severe that they're sometimes literally
| criminal.
| jonex wrote:
| It's the difference between proportional voting vs winner
| takes it all. In the latter case you can't really hold
| politicians accountable, as you will have to choose between
| effectively throwing your vote away or voting for the one
| opposition candidate, that often will be just as bad.
|
| While the UK have some level of representativeness, each
| circuit has a winner takes it all structure, making change
| quite hard to achieve on a larger scale.
| HPsquared wrote:
| This might be a "grass is greener" thing. Do elected
| representatives actually have higher approval rating, or
| enact policies that better fit with public opinion, under
| proportional systems? Sure it'd probably make things a
| little better, but it won't actually solve anything hard, I
| think. All Western countries are struggling (and mostly
| failing) to deal with the same problems regardless of
| details like electoral system.
| ghusto wrote:
| With proportionate representation you get what _should_
| happen, in my opinion, which is sometimes nothing. If the
| coalition can't decide on something, then it doesn't
| happen, which is the correct outcome because not enough
| people agree about it. It represents the people (who also
| can not agree on it).
|
| The alternative is a decision that most people don't
| agree with.
| HPsquared wrote:
| My view is it's always organised elites making the
| decisions, no matter the system. Nominally left-wing
| parties often make brazen right-wing moves, and vice-
| versa. The votes that matter are those of the MPs,
| Congress members etc. which are always influenced by a
| range of factors and organised factions. That's the
| actual decision-making mechanism.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| It's the organized elites, true, but they aren't a
| monolithic block either. In a proportional system they
| also must spread their influence on many parties. This is
| a good thing. With a single party there is a greater risk
| of a cordyceps infection taking over, see Republicans.
| nostrademons wrote:
| IMHO the simple change that would have the biggest effect
| on the American political system would be to require
| Congresspeople to live full-time in their districts and
| conduct all official business over videoconference and
| e-mail. Lots of behavioral science has shown that the
| biggest generator of trust and allegiance is physical
| proximity and face-to-face interactions. Make all reps
| have their face to face interactions with their
| constituents and maybe they will actually start
| representing their constituents. It also makes lobbying a
| lot less economical (instead of hiring one lobbyist that
| can have lunch with 435 representatives, you would need
| 435 lobbyists, or at least 435 plane trips) and
| gerrymandering a bit less practical (there's a decent
| chance the rep would no longer live in the district and
| be forced to give up their seat).
|
| That and ensuring a bidirectional feedback mechanism
| between the executive and legislative branch, so that
| laws that aren't enforced by an administration fall off
| the books, and presidents that don't enforce the laws
| lose their job. Right now, the legal corpus of the U.S.
| is a constantly-accreting body, which means that no
| matter what the President wants to do, they can find some
| law somewhere to justify it, and then anything they don't
| want to do, they just say "We don't have the resources to
| enforce this". This gives the President all the power.
| They should be a servant to the law, not its arbiter.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| With a Supreme Court like this one, what's on the books
| don't matter. They'll find the interpretation.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| That sounds like kind of a mirror of some of peoples
| biggest complaints regarding bureaucracy and committees.
| Deadlock can not only be worse than an imperfect
| solution, it can be weaponized by a minority to exert
| outsized power and extract otherwise unthinkable
| concessions. We see this sometimes in the US House, where
| more fringe or radical groups within parties can block
| the literally functioning of the actual country, safe in
| their assumptions that the two parties will not form a
| majority coalition and that the parties as a whole will
| take more damage from the fallout than the radical
| groups.
|
| I'm not saying that that makes the system worse, mind
| you. I'm not even saying you're wrong that it's a better
| system. I just think anyone who thinks any one system is
| the easy, obvious fix to fair and just representational
| government is either shortsighted, or has different
| priorities than I do.
| gargan wrote:
| It's the opposite of what you say. Proportional
| representation isn't accountable because you don't know
| what coalition you're voting for - coalitions are done in
| backrooms after the election. Winner takes all is more
| accountable because the coalitions are done before the
| election (aka political parties). Parties are made up of
| different factions and they're agreed before the election.
| ghusto wrote:
| I think he's right, actually. It rings true with what we
| see here in the Netherlands. People don't feel like
| they're "throwing their vote away" if they vote for a
| minor party, so politicians can't have a laid back
| attitude.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| Yep and the coalitions are famous for exemplifying the
| concept of "poldering:"
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polder_model
| galangalalgol wrote:
| There are efforts to make this happen in the us starting
| locally and working up. The states are left to decide how
| they implement elections on their own with a couple of
| exceptions. There is a tragedy of the commons aspect to
| it though, as if some states adopt proportional
| representation but not others the ones that do not adopt
| it gain advantage. Ranked choice voting is taking hold
| much faster than pr in the us, and it is pretty slow too.
| It can happen though. Both are viewed as being left
| leaning, which doesn't really make sense to me.
| crazygringo wrote:
| If their minor party doesn't end up as part of the
| governing coalition, there's no sense in which people
| feel like their vote wound up having no effect?
| phatfish wrote:
| I guess you don't live in the UK, because winner takes
| all is far worse for backroom deals. The deals just end
| up being between factions within the same party!
|
| Deals and bargaining all happen AFTER a party takes power
| and completely hidden until a government can't pass their
| own bills like the Labour attempt to reform welfare.
|
| With proportional representation the deals are made in
| order to form a government, BEFORE it has power, and are
| between separate political parties.
|
| Sure there may be agreements that are not all made
| public, but these are much harder to keep in the
| "backroom".
| 4ndrewl wrote:
| You take what happened in the two elections previously
| (and I know technically we don't vote for PMs, but they
| drive the agenda of the party).
|
| 2015 we voted for Cameron, ended up with May then Johnson
| 2019 we voted for Johnson, ended up with Truss(!!) then
| Sunak(!)
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| This time everyone voted for Starmer and got friend-of-
| Epstein Mandelson via McSweeney as a cut-out.
|
| PMs don't drive the agenda. The UK is one of the most
| corrupt developed countries in the world. The people
| driving the agenda are billionaire and multi-millionaire
| donors.
|
| PM is a sales job, not a strategy job, and increasingly
| ridiculous PMs have been selected because the donors have
| had enough of liberal democracy as a concept. If it stops
| working - which it pretty much has - there's going to be
| less resistance to removing it altogether.
|
| Which is why there's resistance to Digital ID. There's
| widespread distrust - with reason - of the political
| establishment right across the divide.
| 12_throw_away wrote:
| Yeah, the UK's goverment does seem to be always be run by
| extremely unserious people. And yeah, I also don't know _why_
| this keeps being the case. It 's not unique to the UK at all
| (actually I think it's mostly the norm, worldwide) but
| perhaps not quite as much the case in the Netherlands?
| Krasnol wrote:
| I assume the main difference is the timeline of events.
|
| It would be ignorant not to fear the ID at this point with
| all the other mechanisms described by OP.
|
| The ID in itself can be a good thing. There is no evil in
| itself. The context however is very worrisome as it may
| become a tool of evil.
|
| Classic human.
| basisword wrote:
| >> So what makes the UK so different to the Netherlands?
|
| Id say it's not a difference in the politicians but the
| citizens. Pessimism and paranoia are rampant in the UK. We
| already went through this ID card debate 20 years ago and the
| fear-mongering won. So the idea just reignites that debate
| with a lot of baggage.
|
| The UK has various systems in place to ensure people are
| legally allowed to work, rent, etc but in reality they
| inconvenience people without actually catching "the bad
| guys". This system would make life more convenient and make
| the chance of catching the bad guys higher.
|
| In truth though the problem is dodgy employers on a large
| scale. Take Deliveroo or Uber Eats. The accounts are rented
| out to illegal workers. You could literally catch one for
| every order you make. But for some reason the government
| isn't actually going after the obvious hanging fruit.
| array_key_first wrote:
| Because the government doesn't actually care about illegal
| workers. Otherwise, like you said, they would spend 1/100th
| the money and go after low hanging fruit.
|
| Which begs the question - if that's not the purpose of this
| law, then what is?
| robotresearcher wrote:
| Mandatory ID cards are a cultural no-no in the UK. They were
| required during WW2, then discontinued in peacetime. People
| burned them in the street. You are not required to show ID to
| a police officer. Even when driving you don't need to show a
| license on the spot, though if stopped for cause you have to
| present it at a police station within three days. At least
| those were the rules when I was a young driver there.
|
| The UK has an idiosyncratic relationship with freedom.
| Technically you have little because (formally limited)
| monarchy. In practice there's this aversion to IDs, things
| like freedom to roam which gives a lot of access to private
| property, and the ability to get citizenship elsewhere and
| keep UK, which republics like the US and India won't allow.
|
| And yet there's massive camera surveillance from the recent
| nanny state. And libel laws mean you have to be careful what
| you print about people. Odd place. Maybe the weather inspires
| it.
| octo888 wrote:
| I don't understand why Americans hold freedom of speech /
| the First Amendment in such high regard.
|
| What does it buy you?
|
| Major corruption, abuse and misconduct still happens. Being
| able to criticise your government doesn't seem to matter in
| the social media age. Look at the state of politics in the
| US right now.
|
| Seems like it's slightly redundant these days - a bit
| anachronistic?
|
| Kind of odd the obsession with it.
|
| (p.s.: All the social media companies being from the US, of
| course - thanks for all the misinformation, disinformation
| and hate speech platforms along with all that 'free
| speech'!).
| Theodores wrote:
| Spying has always gone on, however, in the UK there is a lot
| of it. WW1, WW2 and the Cold War was all about spying.
| Considerable infrastructure was built to support this,
| culminating in 'Five Eyes'.
|
| Furthermore, the former empire was built so that all of the
| telegraph and telephone lines went to London. If you wanted
| to make a call from one African colony to the next, London
| would be in on the man in the middle.
|
| As well as this vast international capability, there is also
| the domestic front. During the Miners Strike in the 1980s the
| secret services were tasked with spying, notably on the
| leader of the miners, Arthur Scargill. Allegedly he used to
| pick up the phone and just give them a few words, either to
| misguide them or to tease them.
|
| This spying continued with Northern Ireland being a 'training
| ground' during 'The Troubles'. There was also considerable
| opposition to cruise missiles in the UK during the Thatcher
| years and all of the people active in the Campaign for
| Nuclear Disarmament were under surveillance. This was not the
| end of it though. Eco-activism was also of interest along
| with a few high profile problem people.
|
| As well as the secret services, there is also Scotland Yard.
| They infiltrate every anti-government single issue pressure
| group as a matter of course, placing people in deep cover.
| Two Guardian Journalists brought this to light in 2012 or so.
|
| Then, on top of that, there are the capabilities of the big
| companies such as British Aerospace. They have their spies
| too.
|
| Hence, on the domestic front, surveillance is vital to cut
| anyone down to size if they might challenge the establishment
| at a later date. Everything just gets nipped in the bud.
|
| The 'Special Relationship' is the spying arrangement at the
| heart of 'Five Eyes'. In the USA, surveillance of the
| population is not allowed, so the workaround is to get the
| Brits to do it for them. This is how it works and has been
| working for decades.
|
| If the UK secret services want to spy on someone in the UK
| then they will have the manpower to do it without getting
| caught. They will be able to get school reports, attendance
| at political demonstrations and much else regarding a person
| of interest.
|
| There is nothing new that I have said here, Snowden and The
| Guardian brought all of this to light, in broad strokes. Both
| HUMINT and SIGINT is world leading. Compare with the USA
| where they have the dragnet but are not so capable when it
| comes to the HUMINT needed for monitoring a small group of
| individuals such as the leadership of a trade union.
|
| It is for these reasons that spying has to be made easy for
| them, for instance by banning Huawei 5g routers on the
| pretence that China is using Huawei backdoors to spy on the
| UK. The problem was not that, it was different. With the
| likes of Cisco et al, the secret services can specify their
| own back doors, however, that is not so easy with Chinese
| owned companies.
|
| There is much in the way of law that has gone along with
| this, for example the Criminal Justice Act of 1994 and the
| Terrorism Act 2000. The latter was definitely to target eco-
| activists, not anyone else. At the time there were eco-
| activist groups such as Reclaim The Streets that organised
| things such as rioting in the City of London with no
| identifiable leaders. They also did not book their protests
| with the police or organise security for the day, hence they
| needed to terminated.
|
| 9/11 brought new challenges and that brings us on to where we
| are today. I personally do not think this digital ID is a big
| deal. Any British citizen can already be easily identified
| even if they don't know their National Insurance number, and
| even if they have no photo ID in the form of a passport or a
| driving license. Name, date of birth and hospital of birth
| are the three bits of information needed. As well as the
| police, the NHS can work with that. As for employers and
| their needs to hire only people legally permitted to work in
| the UK, this is just for due diligence reasons from their
| part. If you speak with an accent that can only be British
| then you can meet the employer's checkbox requirements
| easily, with no photo ID. Just a bank statement should do.
|
| So, where is this coming from? What plausible reason could
| there be for a fresh attempt at identity cards, for the
| umpteenth time?
|
| Brexit...
|
| As you know, Brexit happened and it was ugly. Due to the way
| that 'The Troubles' ended with the Good Friday Agreement, the
| border between Northern Ireland and Ireland (The Irish
| Republic is just 'Ireland', not any other name) has to be
| kept open.
|
| What this means is that the EU is not a complete fortress,
| there is this imaginary border in the Irish Sea that can't be
| closed.
|
| Immigration post-Brexit
|
| A major selling point of Brexit was an end to immigration.
| However, due to the open border with Ireland, immigration has
| become a problem to the authorities, not least because
| working class people despise losing their jobs or getting
| paid less because there is a constant stream of people that
| will undercut them in the employment market.
|
| What happens is that some country ends up being regime
| changed, as per the goals of The War Against Terror. Syria
| was particularly notable for the refugee situation. However,
| there is also Afghanistan, Iraq and everything in between up
| until Ukraine. What happens is very sad. People walk, hitch
| or smuggle themselves into Europe to arrive in one country
| such as Greece. Here they are looked after but they are
| unable to work or escape the refugee camps to buy a house,
| start a family and all those good things.
|
| So they escape the cage of the EU country they first entered
| to try somewhere else. Maybe they get to Germany. However, in
| Germany, they will be asked where they came from, for example
| Greece, and get sent back to Greece. Maybe they try another
| EU country, to get sent back again. And so it goes, until
| someone advises them to go to Ireland, where they can walk
| over the border to the UK, as in Northern Ireland.
|
| Since the UK is not in the EU, they get a fresh start at
| claiming asylum. This gets granted and the local authority is
| then likely to put them up in temporary accommodation.
|
| Next they get 'dispersed'. What this means is that they get
| sent to another British town or city. Here they get temporary
| accommodation and a ridiculously small amount of money to
| live on. This money does not meet their basic needs. The
| asylum process leads to refugee status, which is not
| citizenship, however, they are permitted to work, legally. At
| a guess it takes two years to get to this second hoop. To get
| past refugee status takes even longer, if successful.
|
| During this time the asylum seeker is not allowed their
| passport, the government keeps that. They can get a travel
| permit, however, if they return to their home country then
| they get banned and are not allowed back.
|
| So that is the general process. To say immigration is out of
| control is an understatement to some and 'fascist' to others.
| It is a topic best not talked about, and the practicalities
| of it are not well understood. A boat crossing the English
| Channel full of asylum seekers are going to make the
| headlines of the gutter press, but this Brexit loophole
| situation is not something that the journalists appreciate
| fully, particularly if they voted for Brexit, then they are
| just not wanting to know.
|
| Plausibly, the compulsory digital ID checks for work can be
| used to make the UK unattractive to asylum seekers that know
| the deal in the EU.
|
| Currently the biggest threat to the main political parties is
| Farage and his Reform party. In recent polls, Reform (or
| whatever they are called) would sweep the board, taking seats
| from both the Conservatives and Labour. Due to how it works
| with no proportional representation, the exact outcome of
| this does not necessarily mean Reform would have a majority,
| however, it would be the end of the Conservative Party.
|
| Hence, compulsory digital IDs would provide convenience for
| everyone, when dealing with the government, whilst giving the
| spies the primary keys they always wanted. However, for
| reasons of holding on to power, due to the threat of the
| Reform Party, there may be extra urgency.
| dannyobrien wrote:
| So the Netherlands may not be the best example to use as a
| positive example here.
|
| Notoriously, the national identity system was used during
| World War II as a system for discovering and eliminating the
| Jewish community[1]. The lessons learned from that are a
| frequent topic of discussion in civil liberties groups, and
| the Dutch experience is often cited, both global
| conversations and within the Netherlands -- e.g. On
| Liberation Day 2015, Bits of Freedom held its annual Godwin
| Lecture on the risks of prioritising ID efficiency over civil
| liberties[2].
|
| It may be that special protections were coded into the
| current system to prevent this from happening again, I don't
| know the details.
|
| Certainly, the reputation for how obligatory papers have been
| (mis)used in mainland Europe since Napoleonic times have fed
| into the anglo world's suspicion around introducing similar
| regulations[3]. There are several recurring memes around how
| compulsory documents are a sign of an authoritarian
| environment.
|
| [1] - https://jck.nl/en/agenda/identity-cards-and-forgeries
|
| [2] - https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/2015/04/30/during-world-
| war-ii-...
|
| [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Valjean
| Aeolun wrote:
| I don't think the current ID structure has any field for
| religious or racial history. It's simply a unique number
| assigned to a person at birth.
| pmontra wrote:
| Italy has got an ID card since forever. Of course it was a
| piece of paper, it's a piece of plastic with a chip now. There
| is some experimentation to move that into the state app.
|
| Everything accelerates when it becomes digital, for the better
| or for the worse. One thing that an ID does not do is
| preventing crime and allowing only legal jobs. People find a
| lot of ways to circumvent the rules as long as there are money
| to earn.
| sterlind wrote:
| do those state apps use Play Integrity on Android? will you
| be required to lock yourself into Apple or Google's walled
| garden in order to be a citizen?
| pmontra wrote:
| No idea, I never installed it. I can do everything from my
| web browser.
| iamnothere wrote:
| But don't you understand, it will be so convenient. Just
| imagine the convenience! Are you opposed to convenience?
|
| Frankly, you're just being paranoid. It's possible that
| mandatory digital ID could be abused, but officials haven't yet
| announced their intentions to abuse it. So why are you so
| worried? You're already tracked everywhere you go, and many
| countries already have this system. It seems to work well there
| for keeping people in line. Do you have something to hide?
| Seems a little suspicious, no?
|
| (Did I miss any talking points?)
| array_key_first wrote:
| > officials haven't yet announced their intentions to abuse
| it.
|
| This one is my favorite. I don't know if it's just
| unthinkable naivety or a misunderstanding of how bad actors
| work, but it boggles my mind that this type of reasoning is
| often one of the top arguments I hear.
| baobun wrote:
| The post office scandal wasn't that long ago, even. How can
| you blame people for doubting the ability to keep integrity
| of the system and that it won't be abused and that any
| abuse or incidents won't be covered up?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal
| Muromec wrote:
| >(Did I miss any talking points?)
|
| Silently pointing out to the whole world that does this
| already and nothing scary happened that can't happen
| otherwise.
|
| The only reason we have ids is the borders and codified
| inequality anyway. I can't go to certain places with one id
| and can go there with the other. In some specific places I
| can go in, but would not be able to get _out_.
|
| Somehow I haven't seen a lot of intersection between people
| who believe we should not have borders and people who believe
| we should not have ids.
| nostrademons wrote:
| I wonder if zkSTARKS could help here. Prove that the validity
| of a statement (like "I am a citizen that is authorized to
| receive benefits") without revealing your precise identity.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interactive_zero-knowledge...
| teddyh wrote:
| This would be great and all, but all parties who are in a
| position to choose to implement this kind of system or to
| keep the status quo are already motivated to keep (and
| expand) the existing systems, for any number of reasons.
| Everybody (except the end users) loves to keep that juicy
| metadata and incidental logs of everything.
|
| (Repost from 2021:
| <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26560821>)
| nostrademons wrote:
| It's worth _designing_ a system of government that works
| for everybody, if only for the simple reason that we will
| very shortly (if we don 't already) have a system that
| works for nobody, and likely everybody shooting everybody
| else will follow soon after that. A utopia at least gives
| people something to shoot _for_ , and if you get very lucky
| you might end up with an idealist in power who's willing to
| give it a shot.
| grues-dinner wrote:
| That's basically how the existing share code system works for
| non-citizens. You the worker ask the government for a share
| code. You provide that to the prospective employer and they
| can check that it is valid. The same or similar system can be
| used for driving license validity.
|
| The digital ID is presumably (this is my pulling a guess from
| my rear end, but if I had to implement it, I'd use the
| existing system) an extension to cover citizens too. In fact,
| in principle of that's how it works, it will marginally
| improve privacy because current status quo is basically that
| citizens provide their passport to the employer to
| demonstrate right to work via citizenship.
|
| I also assume that the universal use of a single system means
| that spot-checking any workers status becomes easier.
| Currently if police, say, to use a common example, stop a
| food delivery rider and ask for their right to work they can
| say they're a citizen and just don't have ID on them. The UK
| has long derided the idea of everyone being expected to have
| ID with them with phrases like "papieren bitte", but it does
| mean that the authorities basically cannot check working
| statuses unless there's a physical workplace they can raid.
| Which is a weakness app-platforms and many people without the
| right to work have figured out.
|
| A cynic might think that that kind of problem sounds a lot
| like a problem the government could already have solved in
| several other ways, but by letting it fester might finally
| garner public acceptance for the universal ID system they've
| always wanted.
| Muromec wrote:
| > Prove that the validity of a statement (like "I am a
| citizen that is authorized to receive benefits") without
| revealing your precise identity.
|
| but... why? the agency that gives out benefits has to mint
| this credential and has to assess your dossier. Or they can
| assess your dossier, write you a snail mail with a result and
| wire the money.
|
| What's the use of this fancy crypto other that finding a but
| in this token-minting service and getting those benefits
| without actually being entitled?
| squidbeak wrote:
| This is the proposal for the UK system right now. Zero
| Knowledge Proofs. The technical side hasn't been adequately
| explained to the public.
| mr_toad wrote:
| > This is the proposal for the UK system right now.
|
| Is it? Nobody knows if it's going to be an app, or a
| virtual card, or a real card. So speculation and rumours
| are flying.
|
| Whoever does comms for the government must be asleep.
| qazwsxedchac wrote:
| The ID cards as realized in many other countries are
| comparatively benign, because they are a physical credential in
| the possession of the person concerned. The government cannot
| stop this credential from being used except by physically
| confiscating it or by waiting (years) for it to expire.
| Distributed storage in action.
|
| The UK's proposal makes the "digital ID" a pointer to an entry
| in a centralized database. This database is the definitive
| record of what you are allowed to do or not do (like reside and
| work). Which can be changed or deleted at the stroke of a key,
| through human error or malice. Then what?
|
| When (not if) the database becomes an attribute store across a
| wider scope, the implications are scary. The "digital ID" as
| set out today can't work for its ostensible purpose. Therefore
| its actual purpose isn't being declared. Not hard to connect
| the dots.
| philipallstar wrote:
| I'm against the ID, but the more good faith reason for a
| database entry is it should eliminate fake IDs.
| protimewaster wrote:
| Doesn't a physically held digital ID also do that? Assuming
| the encryption is strong, verifying that the data on the ID
| has the proper cryptographic signature should provide
| assurance that the ID is real, shouldn't it?
|
| I guess, depending on how it's implemented, maybe an ID
| could be cloned and still appear valid, but that seems like
| a possibility for the UK's approach as well (the clone
| would just point to the same database entry).
| philipallstar wrote:
| Yes, I think you're probably right. But it still solves
| other problems such as "the app is a lookalike". If the
| app is basically an ID delivery mechanism that allows an
| operator to call up your photo, it becomes a relatively
| foolproof way to identify you accurately.
| grues-dinner wrote:
| In a good modern implementation, it should be extremely
| hard to produce a physical card with an authenticated
| pointer to the database, because that would be also
| signed.
|
| But considering that they've been retiring things like
| biometric residence cards in favour of web-based systems,
| it's possible there will be no physical component.
| kristianc wrote:
| "Just one more bit of regulation will solve the problem" is
| how Britain became the most centralised country in Western
| Europe. The sad thing is that the majority of the
| population still buy it.
| XorNot wrote:
| The actual reason is everyone has a phone.
|
| We have this is NSW in Australia: the Services NSW app
| provides a digital drivers license which is guaranteed to
| be accepted by authorities as legitimate.
| squidbeak wrote:
| The op is incorrect. The 'database entry' is the one that
| exists right now at the DVLA for driving licenses or HMPO
| for passports. Private sector verification services poll
| that data to verify the data entered by the user in
| onboarding. That's it.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _The government cannot stop this credential from being used
| except by physically confiscating it or by waiting (years)
| for it to expire_
|
| This is not true. Government agencies generally look up your
| ID as necessary to check if it's still valid.
|
| Stopped for speeding? The cop is going to look up your
| driver's license.
|
| Leaving the country? They're running your passport number.
|
| Starting a job? They're checking the status of your SSN.
|
| The physical ID is good enough for low-stakes stuff like
| renting a car with a driver's license, or proving your age to
| get into a bar. But it's _already_ not trusted on its own for
| any of the serious stuff you 're talking about, like where
| you can reside and work.
| psnehanshu wrote:
| Which means they are already a "pointer" to a record in a
| centralised database.
| Muromec wrote:
| >The government cannot stop this credential from being used
| except by physically confiscating it or by waiting (years)
| for it to expire. Distributed storage in action.
|
| Not really. It's part of identity management or whatever it's
| called to have an ability to recall ids, because they get
| lost, stolen and people to who they are issued die.
|
| >When (not if) the database becomes an attribute store across
| a wider scope, the implications are scary.
|
| What are the scary implication really? Most of the EU and
| beyond has some kind of login to the government capability.
| And?
|
| What's the threat model really? The government will revoke
| your fancy thing to report taxes digitally for no reason and
| bankrupt you? They can do so without such roundabout ways.
| aembleton wrote:
| Post something the government doesn't like, and you can no
| longer get a job, but you never find out why.
| squidbeak wrote:
| No the proposal is in line with your first paragraph.
| 'Attribute level proofs' (cyptographically signed data)
| stored in the user wallet, with those signatures coming from
| verification companies polling an API in front of government
| departments. The other side of it is a trust registry holding
| verification service public keys for signature checks..
| jama211 wrote:
| I accept all these valid points, but don't they already know
| exactly who we are and have a digital file on us already? I
| mean, I have a drivers licence and a home address and an
| internet connection I typically don't use a vpn on. There's no
| way they don't have all this already right?
| crimsoneer wrote:
| They do but it's all disconnected, migrants don't have it,
| and it makes delivering government services a massive pain.
| lacy_tinpot wrote:
| If a State can't be trusted with data of its citizens it can't
| be trusted with passports, birth certificates, or any numerous
| other instances of identity. Being able to identify citizens is
| basic and essential to the functioning of a State whereby the
| failure to do means the total failure of the State.
|
| In effect the State is no longer a State and is in fact
| entirely dysfunctional.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| With all the cameras and phone tracking you've brought up, what
| does the ID give to the government that they don't already
| have? I get where you're coming from; I think about this
| myself. However, I usually come to the conclusion that concern
| around this is being penny wise but pound foolish, considering
| both the point you've brought up and also that I have a
| tracking device in my pocket with me at all times that already
| keeps track of where I am, what I'm doing and what I'm
| thinking. I don't really trust Google, Apple, etc. any more
| than the government. I've also seen governments punish people
| extrajudicially (or just trump up charges) when they want to,
| without this.
| puppycodes wrote:
| Once its there it will almost certainly never be rolled back.
|
| Freedom is incompatible with the UK.
| Havoc wrote:
| Uk has a lot of cameras sure but the vast majority of them look
| like 360p tech frankly
| louthy wrote:
| Get a grip. Everybody in the UK already has a National
| Insurance number and NHS number, and most have either a driving
| license or passport -- all the elements of national identity
| are already in place. This is just FUD.
| aembleton wrote:
| So why is another form of ID needed?
| j-krieger wrote:
| > Why? Because the state has already shown it can't be trusted
| with our data.
|
| No state can ever be trusted with this amount of data.
| Governments change. Someday, there will be a government in
| charge that you will disagree with.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > There will be no requirement for individuals to carry their ID
| or be asked to produce it - but digital ID will be mandatory as a
| means of proving your Right to Work.
|
| So it's mandatory for everyone except old people and the
| unemployed. It will almost certainly also be mandatory for
| renting, which has the same check. Then it will gradually seep
| into everything else: benefits and pensions, to cover the
| categories not initially covered. Then police spot checks and ICE
| sweeps.
| GJim wrote:
| > and ICE sweeps
|
| Sorry old boy, but what have the *UK* Institute of Civil
| Engineers got to do with this?
| pjc50 wrote:
| Using the name of the US body to associate it with the
| immigration sweeps carried out in an abusive manner; the
| corresponding UK immigration raids are currently the
| responsibility of the Home Office.
| mc32 wrote:
| Presumably they have their own British acronym and don't
| need to borrow one from the US.
| mc32 wrote:
| The best way to win an argument is to mix and unrelated match
| facts... I mean, unless someone notices...
| ratelimitsteve wrote:
| okay but the best way to win a tennis match is to score an
| unrelated match point
| KaiserPro wrote:
| This isn't the USA, ICE doesn't exist here.
|
| We have the border force, and they aren't allowed to cover
| their faces, yet.
|
| But to your point, its required to have some sort of ID for
| renting, job or voting _already_ the difference here is there
| is a digital version of it.
|
| The other thing is that driving licenses are also ID, that
| carry a PS10k fine for not keeping your address up to date.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > its required to have some sort of ID for renting, job or
| voting _already_ the difference here is there is a digital
| version of it
|
| It's strange how last time I campaigned against ID cards 25
| years ago, none of those requirements were in place. Voter ID
| in particular is a very recent idea imported from the US (and
| of course doesn't apply to postal votes, where there are
| actually real concerns about security and diversion).
| masfuerte wrote:
| It will eventually be required for everybody except the
| wealthy.
|
| Just like nearly everybody's medical privacy has been given
| away in the UK.
|
| Like nearly everybody's rights are unenforceable because they
| can't pay the enormous costs of a court action.
|
| British freedom is great if you can afford it.
| jaggs wrote:
| Please stop Americanizing the UK. ICE does not exist in the UK.
| tencentshill wrote:
| Stasi, Gestapo, ICE. You know what they meant. The UK just
| doesn't have the equivalent aggressive immigrant-removal
| operation in place yet.
| jaggs wrote:
| And may never have. Believe it or not the UK and the USA
| are two different countries, thank goodness. So making an
| assumption that the two will adopt exactly the same
| policies is a little ambitious to say the least. For
| example please note that the UK just agreed to recognize
| Palestine.
| octo888 wrote:
| "Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said ID cards were not in the
| party's election manifesto and added: "That's not our approach.""
|
| - July 2024
|
| "Asked about the possibility of introducing digital ID cards, Mr
| Reynolds [then Secretary of State for Business and Trade, now
| Chief Whip] told Times Radio: "We can rule that out, that's not
| something that's part of our plans.""
|
| - July 2024
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c87rgj4e0rzo
| mellosouls wrote:
| _There will be no requirement for individuals to carry their ID
| or be asked to produce it_
|
| Yet.
| dabeeeenster wrote:
| This will never happen in the UK.
| hn_throw2025 wrote:
| Nice crystal ball you have there.
|
| There's a lot of resistance to this because people can see
| this is the big pill they want you to swallow. Then smaller
| ones can follow.
|
| You might need digital ID recorded to buy a house. Then a
| car. Then eventually pretty much anything.
|
| Any legislation allowing the State to link systems via
| digital ID would be unremarkable and not newsworthy, but the
| end result could be the Panopticon we are all dreading, or
| perhaps a toolkit for more hardline governments in the
| future.
|
| For now, you can sign a Petition [1] against the introduction
| of Digital ID. In the future, you may need to submit digital
| ID before signing such a petition (rather than the current
| email address validation). Imagine what a tool that could be
| for identifying dissenters and undesirables.
|
| [1] https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194
| opless wrote:
| We've seen this before and we'll probably see it again.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NO2ID
|
| https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194
| KaiserPro wrote:
| I am in two minds on this.
|
| 1) I don't like centralised ID, its ripe for abuse.
|
| 2) I don't like the idea of crapita/accenture/G4S/some other
| dipshit company designing and running this.
|
| However
|
| if its an extension of the government gateway, then actually the
| only "innovation" here is the presumable fine for not keeping it
| up to date. (that and the smartphone integration, which I suspect
| is largely symbolic)
|
| So long as its GDS rolling it out, and its properly designed (two
| big ifs) then in principle it could be a useful as the original
| GDS scheme to make government services "digital"
|
| But, the problems of authoritarianism are not to be ignored.
| starmer doesn't have the bollocks to be a dictator, but jenrick
| and farage do. Our constitution has no guards against
| authoritarian capture, its just "good men" doing "good deeds".
| That was easily overridden with Boris. A decent majority in the
| House of commons gives you alomst unlimited power of the state.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Exactly, as I said in
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45385512 it's a question
| of trust and purpose; I don't trust these people, the companies
| behind them, the public opinion they choose to pander to, and
| the stated purpose of immigration enforcement.
|
| Something similar to Estonia would be much less controversial.
| mavhc wrote:
| What did Estonia do correctly that UK has not?
| DicIfTEx wrote:
| Estonia's system was an area of some fascination for me
| years ago, so here's what I can remember:
|
| After splitting from the Soviet Union, Estonia were
| basically starting from scratch with their telecoms system.
| Finland offered them their old stock to get started, but
| the Estonians decided to instead treat it as a greenfield
| project and deploy the most modern infrastructure available
| at the time. Compare to the UK, where most of our
| infrastructure is literally crumbling as it passes its
| 50-year predicted lifespan and we spent almost a decade of
| time and tens of billions of pounds on a vapourware railway
| line. So the technical inheritance (or lack thereof)
| favoured Estonia.
|
| I don't know much about _how_ the Estonian system was
| initially built, but I would imagine a post-Soviet state
| likely retained enough state capacity to do it mostly in-
| house (and perhaps they received outside funding too, as
| the '90s were a period of largesse). Compare to the UK,
| where state capacity is effectively nil and the project
| would invariably be outsourced to the same contractors and
| consulting firms that have taken on every other aspect of
| government, with concomitant price and time overruns (see
| also: train).
|
| A crucial element of the Estonian system is that data is
| private by default (see
| https://e-estonia.com/solutions/e-governance/e-services-
| regi... ) If I recall correctly, any government agency can
| request access to specified data for a state purpose, but
| each request must be reviewed and approved by the data
| subject. All access requests are logged so a subject can
| audit who has been accessing what (which suggests maybe
| it's possible to bulk approve access in advance, or grant
| persistent rights to someone like one's own doctor). In
| comparison, the Snoopers' Charter granted unfettered access
| to Brits' Internet connection records to a huge number of
| agencies, from the security services to the Food &
| Agriculture Agency (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inves
| tigatory_Powers_Act_2016#... ).
|
| Estonia is also recognised as a global leader in IT
| security, following massive investment after Russia-
| attributed cyberattacks in 2007; they host the NATO Centre
| of Excellence and the eu-LISA HQ. As far as keeping one's
| data away from prying _outside_ eyes, they 're probably a
| pretty safe bet. As for the UK... ( _Eyes passim ad
| nauseam_ ).
|
| Lastly, I believe Estonians generally report greater levels
| of trust in their government than Brits. 2023 figures
| suggest the gap may have narrowed from when I last looked
| (I can't say I've been following Estonian politics, so I
| couldn't suggest why) but still some 37.8% of Estonians say
| they trust their national government as compared to 26.7%
| of Brits (see https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications
| /ep/p-trsic/tru... ). And there are certain sizeable
| constituencies in the UK where, in light of historic
| abuses, they are even less likely to ever trust the
| government: Scousers; northerners; women & ethnic
| minorities (specifically for the police, doubly
| specifically for the Met); environmental activists (see the
| spycops scandal); and people of Irish descent. I'm sure
| there's some skeletons in the Estonian government's
| closets, but there's a limit to how much damage you can do
| when your state is 35 years old rather than a centuries-old
| former world-spanning imperial hegemon.
|
| Those stated trust figures also predate the UK government's
| support for the genocide in Gaza, which has doubtless had a
| significant impact on that figure; even people who wouldn't
| have considered themselves particularly political a couple
| years earlier are appalled at the regular arrests of
| protesting pensioners outside Parliament (see
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/09/palestine-
| acti... ). The incredibly unpopular incumbent government is
| only the latest in a long line of increasingly
| authoritarian regimes of both the political right and
| (allegedly) left (see
| https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/07/09/labour-needs-arrest-
| uks-... ), meaning everybody in the country of any
| political persuasion can think of recent examples of why
| they might not want to invite increased government
| surveillance. Plus, with the recent passage of the Online
| Safety Act, most people are now primed to associate a new
| digital ID with the government wanting to know their porn
| habits, and we're a famously prudish nation.
|
| So, in short:
|
| * the Estonian government had the ideal circumstances, made
| all the right choices, prioritised privacy and security and
| are reasonably trusted by their citizens
|
| * the UK government has doddery old infrastructure to work
| with, no money left, an addiction to outsourcing in spite
| of repeat disasters, a track record of authoritarian
| disregard for privacy and have little to no legitimacy
| amongst the populace
|
| And, as others have pointed out, there's just no obvious
| constituency in the country that would be interested in
| this sort of thing (outside of Tony Blair and his mates)
| and no obvious problems that it provides a solution for; it
| seems like a hard sell, whether on ideological or practical
| grounds.
| morningmike wrote:
| this is corny and weird. feels like cyberpunk, government run
| oligarchy. however, maybe this will improve the UK and stop all
| the illegals. about time they clean up that country. yuck
| pera wrote:
| I am quite confused by this point:
|
| > _A new digital ID scheme will help combat illegal working_
|
| If you are an immigrant you already have to prove your right to
| work with a share code:
|
| https://www.gov.uk/prove-right-to-work/get-a-share-code-onli...
|
| And if you claim to be a citizen you must show a passport or
| birth certificate:
|
| https://www.gov.uk/prove-right-to-work
|
| So how exactly will this new digital ID help "stop those with no
| right to be here from being able to find work"?
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| You are correct and this won't help. The government is using
| deceit and dishonesty to push this proposal but I think people
| can see through it. That should really raise a red flag.
| baggachipz wrote:
| Just like people saw through Brexit, eh? Sorry, I say this
| from Trumpistan.
| IanCal wrote:
| Showing a birth certificate isn't a particularly hard bar to
| pass if you want to fake that you're a national to be fair. You
| need just that and a printed letter and there's nothing an
| employer will do beyond copying that (afaik you can't look up a
| birth certificate and check it's valid)
| pera wrote:
| But it would need to align with the records associated with
| their NI number no?
| crimsoneer wrote:
| Ni number isn't associated to a photo, and selling or
| trading them is piss easy
| pera wrote:
| Is this a real thing? It would be essentially identity
| fraud and having more than a couple of jobs linked on
| PAYE at the same time would likely raise a flag somewhere
| in the government
| flumpcakes wrote:
| Yes - people are getting tax bills from HMRC after
| selling their national insurance numbers to dozens of
| people for them to work illegally, not realising they
| will be on the hook for the tax which will the affect
| their benefit claims (child tax credits, etc.)
| pera wrote:
| But then the government should also know where to find
| all these unauthorised workers, I can't imagine how could
| anyone pull this off for more than a couple of months
| without getting arrested (or at the very least losing
| their job)
| zahllos wrote:
| You can _sort of_ look up a birth certificate but the service
| isn 't designed for that. It is here:
| https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/
|
| This is where you get certified copies should you ever need
| that for interfacing with foreign governments that want them
| (the European country I live in very much wants a copy of my
| birth certificate).
|
| It's not an identity check by any means but a legitimate
| birth certificate ought to be findable here.
|
| But yes birth cert + utility bill is a very, very weak
| binding to identity.
| basisword wrote:
| Easier to check during a raid? There's no requirement to have a
| birth certificate or passport or other ID on your person. If
| they currently check national insurance numbers and names you
| can give someone else's (no photo).
| subscribed wrote:
| Because this is a straight up lie Starmer says to try to win at
| least one Farage supporter and get printed in the Torygraph.
| nullbyte wrote:
| This is my thought exactly. Don't they already have something
| like SSN to identify people in Britain? I don't see how a
| digital ID would be any better.
| brikym wrote:
| 1) Cause a problem 2) Introduce a 'solution'
| benmmurphy wrote:
| I don't understand how people are able to work in the UK
| illegally without employers already breaking the law. Employers
| are required to pay payroll taxes for their employees and you
| need a national insurance number for the employee to do this. I'm
| not sure how this fixes something that should already be fixed.
| cassianoleal wrote:
| Not just that but there's already the "share code" system
| that's used to verify status against the Home Office.
|
| This smells a lot of "think of the children" [0].
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
| raxxorraxor wrote:
| He, this Starmer guy seems weird.
| sjw987 wrote:
| I don't understand why this needs to be linked to a smartphone.
| No issue with a national ID, but should we really shackle
| everything to a phone? They're already lost on the questions
| coming in about those who don't have one.
|
| Is this just going to be a cheeky kickback to Palantir given the
| investment last week: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-
| strategic-partnership...
| pepa65 wrote:
| Digital as opposed to analog..? Or does every adult need to have
| a smartphone on them all the time?? I think most countries
| legally require adults to be able to identify themselves with
| government-issued ID. Is this so novel for the UK? But I really
| don't get the "digital" bit...
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45381810
| voidUpdate wrote:
| What's the benefit of this over a passport? A passport is a
| physical thing, so you don't need to have a phone to be able to
| use it, proves who you are with the same details as this digital
| ID, and will probably require a similar amount of paperwork to
| get hold of
| skimojoe wrote:
| agree, seems pointless
| lightwords wrote:
| You usually don't want to carry a passport with you at all
| times. In some European countries (e.g., the Nordics), you have
| your ID, driver's license, firearm license, etc., all in a
| government app that can be verified with an app used by
| officials. You can also sign and authenticate all paperwork
| with the same system
| matt-p wrote:
| Good for them, but I don't see why we need this, or indeed
| why that's a good thing?
| netdevphoenix wrote:
| Easy and cheap regular checks on the spot presential or/and
| online, as frequently as you want vs rare scheduled
| difficult and expensive checks.
|
| Possibilities get realised such as regular remote checks
| (ie selfie to prove you are the id owner holder, address
| proof, etc, flagging odd id holder behaviour or employer,
| etc). Currently, you cannot do this, no visibility into who
| works where and where that person even resembles the person
| meant to be working for [insert gig company].
| matt-p wrote:
| I do selfie to prove I match my driver's license all the
| time (needed for app based banks, and so on)?
|
| The government absolutely knows where I work, are you
| joking? That's what NI numbers are for. You seriously
| think there isn't a join table in a government database
| with my NI number and passport number?
| netdevphoenix wrote:
| There are other workers in the UK aside from you. The
| policy affects them too not just you. You are getting the
| business requirements wrong. You are unlikely to be the
| main reason for the policy. Folks getting paid under
| minimum wage such as some gig workers using someone
| else's identity are the main target.
| matt-p wrote:
| If they arrived here legally won't they have a passport?
| Or national photo ID at the very least? If they are
| driving for Uber or deliveroo then they'll have a
| driver's license too? If they don't have either (or a UK
| birth certificate) then it's safe to say they're not a
| legit citizen?
|
| Who exactly are we solving for?
| netdevphoenix wrote:
| > If they arrived here legally won't they have a
| passport? Or national photo ID at the very least? If they
| are driving for Uber or deliveroo then they'll have a
| driver's license too? If they don't have either (or a UK
| birth certificate) then it's safe to say they're not a
| legit citizen?
|
| Simple. Overstaying or/and expired passport will lead to
| that. Valid status is not a fixed binary state. It is
| better described as a function of personal id, rights
| docs and current time. Currently, the checks are more
| akin to updating a Boolean column on rare occasions.
| Digital id countries do checks more like function calls
| that you can perform easily and quickly
| matt-p wrote:
| RTW already requires ID plus NI, but OK what about if we
| just said 'free passports' and then said passport or
| driving licence plus NI is needed to get a job here. If
| you have a foreign passport and no UK driving licence
| then yes you'll have to keep that up to date in order to
| work here, c'est la vie.
| michaelt wrote:
| To the extent this is technically possible, if the gig
| economy companies wanted to do this, they could do it
| already.
|
| When the driver signs up, check their passport or driving
| license in the normal manner, and take a matching
| portrait you keep on file. Any time you want to, compare
| a selfie to the portrait on file.
|
| Reason they don't do this is it's profitable to hire
| people who can't legally work in the UK, if they can get
| away with it - and the government lets them get away with
| it.
| tdeck wrote:
| I use my passport to verify my right to work in the US during
| the first week of my job, and then I don't bring it any other
| time. So unless you're changing jobs very frequently it
| shouldn't be necessary to carry all the time. A bigger issue
| would be that many people do not have passports.
| voidUpdate wrote:
| I would trust the Nordic governments to write an app to put
| on my phone and not slurp up all my data and spy on me with
| it. I can't say the same about the British government
| richwater wrote:
| Denmark is the largest supporter of Chat Control
| netdevphoenix wrote:
| Missing the point.
|
| A passport is the universal identity document. It's way too
| valuable to carry around and expediting a new passport is
| costly and slow. Checks need to be done in person and the
| passport holder needs to be told in advance about the check (so
| impromptu checks don't work and expired passports get through,
| also catching fake passports and the like is hard).
|
| A digital ID as its name says is digital, checks can be done
| remotely (as often as you want) in a secure environment with
| physical checks possible in addition to that. Regular and
| unscheduled checks are possible with a digital id after the
| initial check both presential and remote. Online checks
| especially can cover for things like the same id being used in
| multiple places, it also means employers cannot fudge it as the
| actual repository of truth lies online. None of this is
| possible with a passport.
|
| Citizen IDs and more recently digital IDs have been used in
| Europe for decades now. Having a redundant piece of ID is
| incredibly valuable.
| voidUpdate wrote:
| The government has been able to do checks on me using my
| passport number etc, like when I was getting my provisional
| driving license, so somewhere there is a digital version of
| it on a government server or something. Can't they just make
| that information available?
|
| What impromptu checks would you need this ID for? The use
| cases I've seen for it are to make sure you are legal to
| work, and when renting a house, both of which are
| circumstances that you can be told about beforehand
| netdevphoenix wrote:
| That is not what I mean. Doing checks using your passport
| number is not good enough . It only proves that you someone
| used your passport number for a job. It doesn't prove it's
| you. It doesn't prove that you didn't swap with someone
| else (worker proxy). A digital id is a token fully
| controlled that opens compliance possibilities that are not
| possible or financially feasible by using just a passport
| number because the government does not control the passport
| numbers of everyone (especially those for which this policy
| is intended).
|
| Think: the ability to verify that the id owner's face
| resembles the face of the id holder. The ability to check
| that the id owner address matches that of the id holder.
| The ability to flag employers containing id owner employees
| regularly failing those checks. The ability to do this
| regularly without previous notice to the id owner at
| national scale remotely or in person is a level of
| compliance you will never get even halfway with just using
| a passport number.
| voidUpdate wrote:
| The driving license application page pulled up my photo
| from giving it my passport number. That photo of me
| proves that I am the owner of that passport. I recently
| gave my work my passport information to prove that I was
| legal to work there. If we need a new system to prove
| that I am legal to work there, then how was it good
| enough to use my passport for that?
| billyjobob wrote:
| The fact that the UK doesn't allow "impromptu checks",
| otherwise known as "Papers please!" is not a bug, it's a
| feature that distinguishes our democracy from other states
| and we are pretty proud of it.
| voidUpdate wrote:
| And in a situation where that is warranted (e.g. a traffic
| violation), you should probably have some form of proof of
| identification on you anyway
| octo888 wrote:
| Not required by law in the UK to have ID on you while
| driving. Works well enough (you have to produce it at a
| station within 7 days). I'm sure if it's serious enough,
| the police can force some other method
| stevekemp wrote:
| In the UK you do not have to have your drivers license
| upon your person when driving a car. Usually you'll be
| instructed to present it to a nearby police station
| within a few days.
| michaelt wrote:
| In the UK all cars have number plates front and rear, so
| that's covered already.
| somelamer567 wrote:
| That unfortunately can, and will change.
|
| In times of war, civil liberties get curtailed. And in 2025
| when Russian and Chinese bots are interfering in our
| democracy at an industrial scale to destroy our countries
| from within, the idea of identity being overlooked for all
| aspects of public life is looking increasingly untenable.
| michaelt wrote:
| Do you believe these russian and chinese bots are walking
| the streets, where an 'impromptu check' by a policeman
| would stop them?
|
| Or are you saying this electronic ID card will be linked
| to people's twitter accounts, to better police speech
| online?
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| Sorry but my own corrupt politicians and ruling business
| class are doing far more damage to my country than
| Russian ad Chinese bots.
| 331c8c71 wrote:
| Cheap scare tactics
| netdevphoenix wrote:
| There is nothing undemocratic about checking whether you
| are compliant with employment regulations on a regular
| manner anymore than it is to check whether your gas
| installation is compliant with gas regulations or your
| voting registration is compliant with voting policy. It is
| completely orthogonal. You might not be in favour of a
| policy but that does not mean that the policy is
| undemocratic.
| kypro wrote:
| One of the problems the UK has is that our two primary
| government IDs - driver licenses and passports - are not
| universally issued. Instead, these IDs have requirements and
| must be applied for at a cost, so not everyone has one.
|
| This means when you want to implement things like the Online
| Safety Act you basically have to implement alternatives to ID
| verification like age estimators which isn't ideal (for the
| government anyway).
|
| With a digital ID anonymous age estimators will no longer be
| required, so when someone is trying to watch porn or view
| footage of a political protest they'll have to identify who
| they are instead of using a fake AI face.
|
| They don't have any real benefit over passports expect for the
| fact that a passport is a selectively issued document which not
| everyone living and working in the UK has access to or has
| applied for, but with digital IDs everyone will have one so
| there will no excuse to not identify yourself any time the
| government wants you to.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Can't use your passport online. In Sweden we have bank id, its
| used for everything from validating purchases, logging in to
| banks, government or other websites, to sign documents, get a
| loan, etc. To get it you would need to go to a bank and present
| a proper ID, the ones using bank id for auth or otherwise only
| get your name and personal number.
| gattr wrote:
| > Stored on mobile phones, the ID would contain details including
| a name, date of birth, residency status and crucially a photo -
| which would distinguish it from National Insurance numbers.
|
| Surely it will be possible to also store it on some government-
| issued, GCHQ-vetted digital device, and not rely on foreign
| companies (Google/Apple) and their locked-down mobile platforms?
| masfuerte wrote:
| They've already said you won't need a mobile phone. They
| mention phones as a deliberate distraction from the fact that
| they will be building a huge central database.
|
| I will be very surprised if the app does much more than dish up
| a pre-signed chunk of ID data, much like an e-passport does
| now. It won't actually need a secure device.
|
| (Which isn't to say they will support anything except android
| and iphone.)
| somelamer567 wrote:
| Is there any particular reason why a UK central identity
| database is bad, while the French and Spanish central
| identity databases aren't a problem?
| mrob wrote:
| They have said it will work for people who "aren't able to
| use a smartphone". Nothing is said about people who are able
| but unwilling. I can only assume I will forced to submit to
| the terms and conditions of a foreign corporation, and forced
| to use non-Free software.
| JetSetIlly wrote:
| This is the most alarming aspect of the proposal to me. I find
| it wild that the government will require me, by law, to buy an
| expensive electronic device I don't want or otherwise need, in
| order to be employed. It's absolutely amazing to me that the
| government is forcing me to spend money in this way.
| HankStallone wrote:
| My government requires me, by law, to send it tens of
| thousands of dollars every year, much of it to be spent on
| things I don't want or need, in order to stay out of prison.
|
| Requiring me to spend another $100 or so on a phone seems
| like pretty small potatoes, compared to what they intend to
| use the device for. I'm not saying I'd like it, but it's a
| detail, not the main issue.
| ris wrote:
| > My government requires me, by law, to send it tens of
| thousands of dollars every year
|
| That's only because you have those tens of thousands to
| give it. The same will not generally be true for people who
| have nothing.
| JetSetIlly wrote:
| It's not so much the money but rather being forced to do
| business with a company I do not want to do business with.
| If this were an optional activity, like driving a car and
| being forced to do business with an insurance company,
| that's one thing. But this will be a forced commercial
| interaction simply to be employed in the UK. That's a very
| novel abuse of power.
| iamnothere wrote:
| This is the crazy part to me. I want nothing to do with
| the iPhone/Android duopoly and I do not participate in
| it, at the cost of some personal convenience from time to
| time. If my own country were to implement this I'd
| honestly just tell them to stick me in jail. I can be a
| test case, why not? You have to draw the line somewhere.
| JetSetIlly wrote:
| It really is mad.
|
| Whenever you hear someone say, "everyone has a phone
| these days", you must push back against that. It might
| seem like it to them but it's just not true. I've always
| chosen to point out that it isn't true because I was
| worried that one day, it would be become a legal
| requirement to own one. It seems that day has arrived, in
| the UK at least.
|
| I'm a little in disbelief that I will soon be legally
| required to own one of these things.
| crimsoneer wrote:
| There will be a physical card for time travellers from 1999
| and elderly relatives
| JetSetIlly wrote:
| Hopefully there will be. That will be a good solution for
| people like me, who want to live uncomplicated lives in
| peace.
| noelwelsh wrote:
| I don't think Kier Starmer understands that when people voted for
| Labour, they were, in fact, voting for Labour, not Reform / the
| Tories. This proposal at least has some merit (though it is not
| without issues) but trying to sell it as preventing illegal work
| is ludicrous, attempting to appeal to the right-wing votes who
| will never vote Labour, and giving control of the conversation to
| the Weasel in Chief, Nigel Farage.
| robin_reala wrote:
| People vote for an idea of Labour that Labour in the last 25
| years has not been able to live up to unfortunately.
| Lio wrote:
| If he doesn't realise that then he probably also doesn't
| realise that all this dictatorship tooling he's installing is
| more than likely going to fall into the hands of Reform at the
| next election.
|
| He'll have to live with the consequences as will the rest of
| us.
| octo888 wrote:
| The voters misunderstood too. How much evidence and examples
| from the period of 1997-2010 did people need? All a quick
| google away
|
| A harsh lesson in believing the enemy of your enemy is your
| friend.
|
| Though mostly in the UK it's usually just apathetic "well time
| for the other party to have go" (due to 14 years of the last
| lot) more than anything more educated
| Macha wrote:
| Their strategy seems to be that they think their left flank is
| secure and they need to pull to the right to secure Tory voters
| who are now at a crossroads with how diminished the Tories are.
| Will they go to Reform? Will they go back to the Tories? The
| Lib Dems? It seems that Labour think some of the toughness
| without the undertones that Reform often has might grab them
| some of their voters. Maybe the implosion of Your Party gives
| them a feeling of more security on the left flank.
|
| But yeah, this abandonment of the issues they traditionally
| represented to try and attract the soft centre right voters
| might not cause their traditional base to vote for the Tories.
| But it might send their centrists to the Lib Dems, their
| lefties to the Greens/SNP/etc and their "I just want change,
| any change" supporters to Reform. Along with increasing apathy
| and reducing turnout on their former core. Polling certainly
| seems to indicate that this is happening.
| matt-p wrote:
| So I currently have;
|
| A National Insurance Card (needed to get a job), drivers license
| and passport, one of latter is also needed (in practice) to get a
| job.
|
| Why would a brit card help us reduce the number of people working
| illegally?
|
| The only notable 'employers' of illegal workers in the UK are
| American tech firms Uber and deliveroo (doordash) because they
| allow driver substitution without verifying that the substitute
| is legit. That should be made illegal and then fine them into the
| ground for anyone who slips through. Brit card doesn't help and
| is a distraction.
| reactordev wrote:
| It has nothing to do with cards and everything to do with data.
| notavalleyman wrote:
| But the person you're replying to, just explained to you, how
| the government already have the relevant data. So it's
| clearly not about data, because the government already issue
| his NINO and passport
|
| Edit - I mean, just play it back in your head. The PM is
| probably watching small boat arrivals and reform polling
| numbers like a hawk. And here's his idea to fix both
| problems, and you're saying, actually no, the PM is just
| doing this to get data on where I go to work, even though
| they already have my PAYE details
| Lio wrote:
| I think it's 100% about the data.
|
| I beleive that Labour see this new ID system as the
| solution to all the age verification questions now required
| by the Online Safety Act. e.g. access to things like
| Reddit, BlueSky messaging, Spotify.
|
| With that in mind I think new data you're talking about
| will be enhanced tracking and monitoring on everyday online
| activity of UK citizens.
| motbus3 wrote:
| I don't think it is only online. It is really a distopean
| future in US and UK right now.
|
| I honestly understand the problem with immigration, but
| at the same time, I think this way of approaching the
| problem is just to create "the enemy" from 1984.
|
| It seems that immigrants right now move something between
| 4B-10B a month in UK which is not a small number.
| Considering the costs elsewhere altogether, it seems
| quite small win for the risk.
| astonex wrote:
| >It is really a distopean future in US and UK right now.
|
| This ignores the fact that most of Europe and Asia
| already have national IDs
| reactordev wrote:
| We all have national ID's. It's about having digital ID's
| in a system they control.
| matt-p wrote:
| I tend to agree, that or a big distraction/white
| elephant/dead cat.
| motbus3 wrote:
| I guess the guy above is right. It is about the data and
| the right to use your face and track you everywhere. This
| can be easily paired with that UK bonkers camera ai thing.
| They might not need to know who is illegal, but if the
| camera does not know you, you might need to explain
| yourself and show an id.
|
| At the same time, I wonder how will they deal with people
| wearing burkas, masks, balaclavas etc
| matt-p wrote:
| Government already have my photo for passport and
| driver's license, I struggle to believe that there's
| people here working who don't have at least a provisional
| license or passport of any kind.
| motbus3 wrote:
| Maybe they plan to ask Uber and deliveroo to authenticate
| the workers via facial recognition?
| matt-p wrote:
| In order to drive a motorcycle or car you need a driving
| license which has photo ID?
|
| Ok maybe you deliver by push bike.. but if you arrived
| here legally you will have a passport? If you didn't you
| ergo don't have the right to work here?
| reactordev wrote:
| Outsourced to companies that don't share data, which is
| why the government is requiring you to submit more data.
| How hard is this? Eventually they'll have your DNA,
| Fingerprints, photos, family trees, employment history,
| money, spending habits, vices, travel locations,
| conversations, and your comings and goings via license
| plate readers.
|
| Welcome to your future.
| paxys wrote:
| What new data does another ID card give the government?
| astonex wrote:
| A Brit can pass a RTW check without a drivers license or a
| passport - a paper birth certificate is also acceptable (and
| paper can be lost, damaged, forged), as neither a drivers
| license or a passport a mandatory. Getting those can be
| expensive for some people while this ID is free.
|
| A NI number is not ID, it's a reporting number.
|
| Lastly, a national ID is a tried and tested scheme in many,
| many countries and brings a lot of positives. The only
| "negatives" are slippery slope make-believe scenarios not based
| in reality.
|
| https://www.gov.uk/prove-right-to-work
| matt-p wrote:
| I appreciate that, I decided to exclude it for simplicity
| because obviously not everyone working here was born here :)
|
| I don't really understand why I need a Fourth (or Fifth)!
| National ID?
|
| I don't really get the point on reporting number, true, but
| it's also a UID linked to a passport or birth certificate.
| astonex wrote:
| You don't currently have any National ID. You have forms of
| ID, which others might not have, but none are national
| mandatory ID that every citizen and resident has. As such
| many benefits in streamlining and simplifying processes
| cannot be achieved when everyone has a UID as such. Imagine
| making a system where you used various ID formats, and you
| couldn't guarantee anyone had one in particular, and some
| people had none.
|
| Your NI card literally says it's not identification. A NI
| number is not linked to a passport as it's not mandatory to
| have a passport, so that would not work for many people. It
| is just a number used for tax accounting.
| matt-p wrote:
| Ok then 'Government issued [photo] ID' so what if it's
| not a 'national ID'? They have all the data they need to
| tackle this. You can't get a NI number without proving
| who you are, if the government don't trust NI numbers
| (which they are minting?) then they could simply re-issue
| them? That would be far far easier than a new national
| ID.
| astonex wrote:
| >You can't get a NI number without proving who you are
|
| That's not true either. You're sent your NI number just
| before 16 years old without providing anything.
|
| Also, an NI number is just a number. There is no photo.
| How can you look at it and say it belongs to the person
| presenting it? And no you can't look up a passport or
| something in another system based on the NI number,
| because those other IDs aren't mandatory so the person
| might not have them.
|
| The only way to really ID someone is to have mandatory
| photo ID, whether that be digital or not.
| matt-p wrote:
| How do you think HMRC know to send you a card? If they're
| giving them out like smarties to foreigners then they
| could simply... Not (a British person gets one as a
| function of having a birth certificate)
| noelwelsh wrote:
| Now that ID is required for voting, it's reasonable that
| the government provides a form of ID, for free, to all
| citizens. Passports cost money and not everyone has one.
| Same for driving licenses. It should also streamline other
| government services.
|
| I think it would be simpler to repeal the ID requirement
| for voting. I don't believe there is any evidence of
| widespread voting fraud, so it adds unnecessary cost. I
| certainly wouldn't try to sell the ID as preventing illegal
| work, which is obviously ludicrous.
| matt-p wrote:
| Passports cost money yes, but introducing a Brit card
| won't?
| michaelt wrote:
| _> A Brit can pass a RTW check without a drivers license or a
| passport - paper birth certificate is also acceptable, as
| neither a drivers license or a passport a mandatory. Getting
| those can be expensive for some people while this ID is
| free._
|
| This policy would absolutely sail through, with no
| controversy at all, if it had just been "free passports for
| all" reusing all the existing rules, existing IT and existing
| bureaucracy; and "Optional digital passport on your phone"
| for those who want that.
|
| Why they're doing this in the most expensive, unpopular way
| possible - I have no idea.
| anotherhue wrote:
| How are the consulting companies supposed to make money
| with that kind of attitude?
| noodlesUK wrote:
| A birth certificate is not proof of citizenship or legal
| presence in the UK for anyone born after 1983.
|
| Anchoring proof of citizenship is going to become a very
| obnoxious problem going forward if there is not a population
| register or universal ID system introduced, as you'll have to
| go back however many generations it takes to reach birth
| before 1983.
|
| I think the UK and Ireland are the only countries in the
| entire world that have non-birthright citizenship and no
| citizenship register, which is a less than ideal combination.
| foldr wrote:
| >A National Insurance Card (needed to get a job)
|
| You don't need the card itself in order to get a job, just the
| number. In this respect it's rather like an American social
| security card. (I know some US employers will ask to see the
| card, but that's not a legal requirement:
| https://www.ssa.gov/employer/SSNcard.htm)
| SoftTalker wrote:
| People already work illegally. They get paid cash, off the books.
| New forms of ID won't stop this.
| TheChaplain wrote:
| I don't think the point is to eliminate all illegal work.
|
| But the new form of ID makes work place checks real easy and
| fast.
|
| Add a real hefty fine for the owner and possibly ban from
| conducting any form business for a few years, that will have
| undoubtedly have effect.
| v3xro wrote:
| There are already hefty fines for owners of businesses where
| the people are not working "legally". There's a "share code"
| that employers are supposed to check to verify visas. All the
| laws and machinery is already there and it does not look
| particularly high-cost to me.
| pipes wrote:
| I genuinely think the next move will be using it as part of their
| age verification check. I am guessing they want it to be your
| online id. No more anonymous internet usage.
|
| It is really grim what is happening to the UK. For the most part
| no one gives a shit. And if you do, you are automatically branded
| as "right wing".
| voidUpdate wrote:
| Really? I've generally seen more people on the left giving a
| shit about government overreach etc
| somelamer567 wrote:
| > No more anonymous internet usage
|
| And given the torrent of inauthentic "right wing" commentators
| nudging public opinion on the BBC's Have Your Say, the Daily
| Mail and Reddit, I'm not entirely sure this will be a bad
| thing.
|
| Recall that Iran cut off the internet for university exams, and
| the volume of posting by Scottish pro-independence accounts on
| Twitter/X dropped 98%. Food for thought.
| philipallstar wrote:
| > And given the torrent of inauthentic "right wing"
| commentators nudging public opinion on the BBC's Have Your
| Say, the Daily Mail and Reddit, I'm not entirely sure this
| will be a bad thing.
|
| Reddit is the most left-wing moderated, fedora-tipping regime
| it's possible to get.
| astroflection wrote:
| Correlation is not causation.
| angryscot25 wrote:
| Are you thinking of the US bombing Iran perhaps? Assuming
| they are running such a disinformation campaign (which is the
| theory you are talking about) why would they shoot themselves
| in the foot and cut their own spooks' connection off? And
| you're off by almost two order of magnitudes, the study in
| question found that 4% of pro-indy activity was linked to
| Iranian controlled attacks (and I am highly doubtful of
| Twitter's influence in that debate in 2025...)
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| This is just wishful thinking. They're not going to make all of
| the farm workers, many of whom have difficulty reading ANY
| language (let alone English), download an "app" and install it on
| their phone.
|
| "In 2024, a significant portion of the UK adult population,
| approximately 8.5 million people (1 in 6), struggles with reading
| and writing at a basic level, according to The Reading Agency's
| 2024 report"
|
| Maybe they'll have an exception for people who are more migratory
| in nature. In that event, I think we'll get to see a nice real-
| world example of a cyberpunk-style dystopia. "High tech, low
| life". The upstanding citizens will be surveilled, preyed upon by
| corruption, and will be running on a social credit score
| treadmill designed to work them to death. Meanwhile, a plucky
| band of rebel farm workers, who are free to work outside the
| system, will bring down the establishment and bring freedom to
| all. Roll credits.
| somelamer567 wrote:
| HARD eye-roll at the libertarian scaremongering about this basic,
| sensible idea to tame the identity mess.
|
| * I have half a dozen different ID numbers for various things
| like NI, NHS, drivers license, tax etc
|
| * I also have a dozen different GOV.UK logins for various
| services.
|
| * When need to provide strong proof of identity to AWS to reset a
| root password, I have to go to a notary and pay PS200 for a
| signature and stamp and then scan the paperwork into an email.
|
| The antis, as always, are clutching at straws. At what point does
| this stop being acceptable because of libertarian vibes and
| scaremongering about 'Big Brother' -- especially when most of the
| rest of the world has had ID cards for decades?
| voidUpdate wrote:
| https://xkcd.com/927/
| iamnothere wrote:
| I don't own and refuse to purchase an iPhone or Android device.
| Where would that leave me? Fortunately I am not a UK citizen!
|
| This effectively blocks development of mobile Linux as an
| alternative in the UK. It is already enough of a challenge to
| get people to try Linux phones without support for their
| favorite apps, and now it's a requirement to own a US big tech
| pocket spy device? Absolutely absurd and Orwellian, and from
| the birthplace of Orwell no less.
| astonex wrote:
| Orwell was born in India. You should learn a little about him
| before saying everything is Orwellian
| iamnothere wrote:
| British India.
| exe34 wrote:
| Unlike the NI number, which you can't legally work without...
| astonex wrote:
| This is not true. You can work without a NI number, you will
| just be given an emergency tax code. A NI number is not ID, it
| is a reporting number.
|
| Your card literally says, "THIS IS NOT IDENTIFICATION"
| dfedbeef wrote:
| Wanna bet lol
| lelandfe wrote:
| I feel like governments worldwide are perennially musing " _what
| if we could know what everyone is doing, all the time?_ "
| somelamer567 wrote:
| This is a natural and unfortunate consequence of crime and
| foreign aggression getting increasingly borderless. As the
| world gets smaller, and as more and more of the world's
| population knows about the outside world, the more badness we
| face.
|
| Like it or not, our high-trust society is devolving into a low-
| trust society as the world opens up. Our defences must evolve
| -- and the current free-for-all needs to end.
| octo888 wrote:
| Perhaps the better solution is to stop opening up and make a
| concerted effort to return to a high-trust society, rather
| than destroy privacy and go full authoritarian polite-state?
|
| Or must we absolutely must accept eg every Nigerian,
| Pakistani, Syrian, Afghan, Indian etc who has a fleeting
| desire emigrate, else our society will collapse?
| angryscot25 wrote:
| I don't understand why we can't have both - are you saying
| that native-born Brits are inherently more trustworthy than
| people from other nationalities? Or do you mean that we
| should also curb internal migration as well?
| gushie wrote:
| I won't hold my breath. It'll take 5 times longer than planned,
| cost 10 times more, won't do everything it originally set out to
| do, then won't work on the tech that everyone will have when
| finished, and a future government will decide they don't like it
| and will start over.
| motbus3 wrote:
| Can anyone really point me out the real problem about the
| immigrants? How big is it compared to, for example the lack of
| funding of the NHS or the hyper funding of other initiatives such
| as war in Ukraine.
|
| Or are those things somehow related? I would be crazily scared to
| know that immigrant care workers will leave NHS as most hospitals
| relies on them. The government already made clear they won't pay
| people more nor will give more benefits for NHS workers and I am
| quite sure not Brits will take those spots when Tesco express
| pays more for less hours of work with more benefits.
| astonex wrote:
| >Can anyone really point me out the real problem about the
| immigrants?
|
| This minimises the problem. The UK voters have consistently
| voted for reduced immigration, with polls showing the preferred
| number to be somewhere between 0-100,000. Those elected have
| consistently ignored them which has raised tensions.
|
| In the last few years, the UK had around 1 million people net
| per year. 1 million people is bigger than most cities in the UK
| for comparison, so imagine a new city of people, every single
| year. The infrastructure could not, or did not keep up and has
| contributed to worse living standards through overly-subscribed
| national services, increased living costs, etc.
|
| >for example the lack of funding of the NHS or the hyper
| funding of other initiatives such as war in Ukraine.
|
| The NHS is already the single biggest expenditure of the UK's
| taxes. I remember it being more than 25% of the total budget.
| How much should be spent on the NHS? 50%? 90%?
|
| The cost of defending democracy and freedom from a tyrannical
| Russia is also barely a drop in the bucket, while having huge
| meaning for many. Only 2% of the budget for the entire Armed
| forces, let alone just some support for Ukraine, compared to
| the 25+% on NHS. It's nothing.
| benrutter wrote:
| I think there's some conflation happening here (not
| necessarily from the above comment).
|
| Those figures relate to general immigration, which wouldn't
| be affected by ID schemes since people are given approval by
| the government to arrive and work in the UK. If the
| government wanted to reduce regular immigration, it could
| just decide to award less visas.
|
| The ID scheme would only affect _irregular immigration_ which
| is much lower (approx 50,000 a year by the governments stats,
| obviously hard to know how accurate that is, but much lower
| than 1 million[0]).
|
| [0] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-
| system-...
| GordonS wrote:
| It's quite possible that this whole digital ID thing is a red
| herring, to distract from recent revelations about Morgan
| McSweeney - who illegally took money from the Israel lobby, to
| fund a fake "antisemitism crisis" in Labour, with the goal of
| replacing Corbyn with Israel-aligned Starmer.
|
| Some of the digital ID proposal documents published by UK gov
| even bear the "Labour Together" stamp - Labour Together being the
| Israel-aligned "think tank" that McSweeney used for the illegal
| funds!
| octo888 wrote:
| > Some of the digital ID proposal documents published by UK gov
| even bear the "Labour Together" stamp - Labour Together being
| the Israel-aligned "think tank" that McSweeney used for the
| illegal funds!
|
| Wow straight out of the Tory playbook (see eg Rhys-Mogg "lying
| [down] in Parliament" to poison search results for lying to
| parliament). They are so incredibly similar
| Hikikomori wrote:
| In Sweden we have bank id that you can optionally use as ID (new
| feature). But its mostly used to validate purchases, sign things,
| or login to banks, government websites or whatever website might
| use it to auth. It does not hand over all id information to the
| site that uses it to identify you, just name and personal number.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Anti-migrant rhetoric used to push control that will only ever
| apply to citizens from the supposed party you should have voted
| for if you're pro-migration is wild.
| ryukafalz wrote:
| In addition to all the issues mentioned in the article, this
| seems to mean that UK citizens will effectively be forced to
| accept the terms of service of one of two US companies (Apple or
| Google). If you must have either an Android or iOS device to run
| this digital ID app (which presumably will be distributed via the
| Play Store on Android), there's no other option!
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| For me a big red flag is that the government is using deceit
| and dishonesty to push this: " _in an effort to crack down on
| illegal migrant workers_ " is complete, transparent rubbish.
| spacedcowboy wrote:
| Of all the things there are to complain about these ID cards,
| I don't think this is the one to choose.
|
| Starmer has been ambivalent on ID cards (at least compared to
| Blair, who must think Xmas has come twice this year). Really
| the only reason this is being introduced is because it lets
| Labour look like they're trying to tackle illegal
| immigration/employment/benefits-claiming.
|
| Reform (led by Trump's mini-me) is making political progress
| hand over fist by casting immigration as the root of all
| evil. I'm pretty certain this is Labour's response. They
| don't want the populist (otherwise known as "batshit insane")
| policies Reform are proposing ("end all immigration, send all
| immigrants back home") - but a more-moderate "you need to
| prove you're entitled to work/live here/claim benefits" seems
| on-message to me.
|
| So for once it might just be ok to take a politicians word at
| face value. This doesn't preclude nefarious use later on, of
| course...
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| If that's Labour's response to Reform UK then it is the
| most ill-thought-out, if not idiotic, possible:
|
| There is a real issue with immigration in the UK.
|
| People want actual action on immigration, not gimmicks, not
| lies. The Conservatives were annihilated because their
| voters caught up with the fact that they were lying
| (talking tough while actually pushing immigration higher).
|
| Those Digital IDs would do nothing against illegal
| immigration considering existing right to work and right to
| rent legal checks. It is clear and people see it, so see
| previous point. " _you need to prove you're entitled to
| work /live here/claim benefits_" is already the case and
| has always been the case. He is copying the disastrous
| Conservative strategy to talk tough while doing nothing and
| in fact actually keeping immigration up.
|
| There have been previous attempts to introduce ID cards.
| People have always been generaly against them and the most
| against them are probably those already supporting Reform
| UK or the libertarians on both sides. So he's only eroding
| the little support he has left (progressist liberals) while
| strengthening the opinion of those already against him. I
| was looking at the readers' comments on The Guardian and
| there are overwhelmingly opposed to the proposal. So if
| even them turn against Starmer he is well and truly toast.
| dang wrote:
| (This was originally a comment on
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45387509. We merged that
| thread hither and added
| https://www.theverge.com/news/786323/uk-digital-id-plans-man...
| to the top text.)
| einarfd wrote:
| If you look at the countries that are lauded at having the best
| online government services. They all have some type of digital
| ID.
|
| Having something like that is imo. a cornerstone for building out
| top notch digital governmental services, and I don't fault the UK
| for trying to get this in place.
|
| That being said, I'm not convinced it will be that much of a
| blocker for illegal workers. I'm sure they will find a way around
| it.
| cheema33 wrote:
| If I hire someone to work and pay them in cash, then I don't
| need to worry about this? Yes?
| mindcrash wrote:
| In case you are wondering if only the UK is working on this...
| buckle up:
|
| https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-...
|
| https://ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/sites/spaces/EU...
|
| https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet
| Xss3 wrote:
| Any digital ID not using a form of blockchain tech is doing it
| wrong in my view.
| isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote:
| What purpose would that serve if identity is assigned by a
| centralized entity (the government)?
| Simulacra wrote:
| Quite ... a papers please moment.. if I recall correctly, South
| Korea has it where you have to register with the government to
| get an assigned username and password.
| dang wrote:
| We changed the URL from https://news.sky.com/video/all-british-
| adults-to-require-a-d..., which is a video, to a text article
| that appears to give the important background info.
| lawlessone wrote:
| How's this going to work in Norther Ireland? They haven't thought
| of that have they?
| illwrks wrote:
| I don't see why they can't augment and phase in a new National
| Insurance ID which has photo on it rather than introducing some
| new system...
|
| Unless of course this new system is for some other unclear
| purpose.
| tekno45 wrote:
| What info is on this ID that they don't already have access to?
|
| Not from the UK so i don't know how much more they're asking for
| JetSetIlly wrote:
| That's not really the issue people have with it.
|
| The issue I have is that it provides a convenient way for
| people to hassle me for my identity. Being able to identify
| myself is not a problem I've ever had and I don't like the idea
| of being forced to buy a smartphone just to remain an employed
| citizen in the UK.
| fithisux wrote:
| So sad for Britain. But the rest of the countries are eager to
| follow. Thankfully war is starting soon.
| woodylondon wrote:
| We already have multiple forms of identification. The National
| Insurance number, passports and photo ID such as driving
| licences, which we must provide when starting employment.
|
| If you're not from Britain, you must present evidence of your
| right to work or other documentation. This is already the law.
|
| Any company that does not follow this is violating the law.
|
| In reality, most illegal workers are engaged in cash-in-hand jobs
| that never require ID. A digital ID alone will not solve this
| problem.
|
| Adding a digital ID won't make any difference.
|
| We've also seen similar issues with the UK's attempt to censor
| adult content "to protect children." It sounds reasonable on the
| surface (no child should have open access to the internet!).
| Still, the law was written so broadly that even community clubs
| involving children with no relation to adult content were caught
| in its provisions.
|
| Threatened by fines and bureaucratic red tape, many closed their
| doors. International sites that had no idea what to do - now
| block the UK. And did this stop access to explicit content? No.
| Anyone can use a VPN, or an anonymity-oriented browser like Brave
| and use a Tor tab to bypass the blocks completely. For the non-
| technical, how long before these Age ID check services, which the
| government wants everyone to use (private companies owned mainly
| by adult companies), are hacked and everyone's viewing habits are
| released?
|
| How long before we're required to use our Digital ID to log on to
| the internet, enabling monitoring of everything we browse?
|
| A more innovative approach would be for ISPs to by default
| integrated parental controls on residential connections,
| something that has been technically possible for decades. In
| fact, any mobile phone contract in the UK operates similarly. Why
| not home internet? This isn't about new legislation; it's about
| education.
|
| Parents already understand why they shouldn't give alcohol or
| tobacco to their children; why not teach them how to protect
| their children online?
|
| The new NHS app and driving licence app are expected to be
| available by the end of 2025. How long before they're integrated
| into a single system where the government maintains one massive
| database containing every individual's driving information,
| medical records, browsing history, banking and tax details? It's
| not far-fetched to imagine such overreach occurring.
|
| Also as of this week, HMRC (our UK tax office) also now has the
| right to raid any UK bank account for taxes owed (leaving only
| PS5,000 in the account). This applies to both individuals and
| companies. Consider a company that becomes insolvent days before
| paying salaries how will they pay their workers? Some companies
| have already become insolvent after paying wages while still
| owing taxes and National Insurance. Just HMRC now get their money
| and the employees won't.
|
| I realise there are several loosely connected points above, but
| that's precisely the problem: all these developments have emerged
| over the past 18 months.
|
| So when the UK government claims these measures are "for the
| people," the argument falls flat.
|
| It's difficult to believe that policymakers don't recognise these
| fundamental flaws.
|
| This raises the question: what's the real motivation? To me, it
| seems less about protection and more about monitoring and
| control, implemented by people too afraid to speak against their
| superiors.
|
| At nearly 50, I see a UK very different from the one I was born
| into. One thing I know for sure: once this process begins, it
| will only worsen, and a new government will maintain these
| systems and extend them further. We left Europe - but kept every
| single law! As a nation, we just allow all of this to happen.
| It's the British way!
| a022311 wrote:
| The same thing is happening in Greece. The new mandatory digital
| ID replaces and unifies everything about citizens in one place,
| "to make it easier for government services to share information
| between each other". It can indeed be useful, but the privacy
| implications are enormous. Just imagine that a policeman,
| employer or anybody else with access to the information linked to
| the ID can instantly view our medical records, tax status and
| even simpler things like if we've ever been caught driving while
| drunk. Nobody knows what other information could be attached to
| it, but it's certain that it can be used to discriminate against
| us.
|
| The worst part is that we no longer have any power to do
| something about it. Eventually, after it goes through the testing
| phase in the UK and Greece (and a few other countries where it's
| being implemented), this will probably roll out on a global
| scale, making privacy impossibly. I'm starting to get this
| feeling that in the next decade, we'll be living in 1984...
| asah wrote:
| ??? do not rely on incompetence for privacy.
|
| anyway, privacy is dead - longer conversation, but even if you
| don't carry your cell, there's cameras everywhere with
| face/gate recognition.
| BeefySwain wrote:
| Do you mean gait recognition?
| EasyMark wrote:
| It doesn't have to be dead, that's a choice we made as a
| society. It's an artificial limitation if people wake up and
| vote against it while they still can
| logicchains wrote:
| >The worst part is that we no longer have any power to do
| something about it.
|
| That's not true. If a large enough mob of citizens went to the
| capital, burned down the government building and harassed MPs
| on the street (and followed them to their homes), as recently
| happened in Nepal and before that in Bangladesh, things would
| change very quickly.
| lotsoweiners wrote:
| Exactly! Creativity is dead to so many people.
| freedomben wrote:
| With no privacy though, how do you even talk about it with
| enough people to organize?
| NicuCalcea wrote:
| > Just imagine that a policeman, employer or anybody else with
| access to the information linked to the ID can instantly view
| our medical records, tax status and even simpler things like if
| we've ever been caught driving while drunk
|
| Why would I imagine that? There are privacy implications, but a
| unique ID doesn't mean everyone has access to all your data at
| any time for any reason.
| array_key_first wrote:
| All it takes is one breach or vulnerability and then yes,
| they DO have access to all your data.
|
| Imagine someone steals your driver's license. No biggie.
|
| Now imagine they steal your identity which is linked to
| everything you ever do.
| jama211 wrote:
| But that's already the case without a digital id. It's not
| like those accounts aren't already linked together.
| hereme888 wrote:
| Breach = data for all citizens.
|
| Card = one person, limited use.
|
| But most importantly: a Hitler rises to power =
| opposition is screwed.
| grues-dinner wrote:
| The accounts generally aren't linked together. Everything
| about the UK government IT is a huge group of independent
| systems all pretty much isolated from each other. You can
| argue over whether that's down to incompetence,
| organisational turf wars, or good security design.
|
| Which is why you have completely separate account to pay
| the same government for crossing one specific brige in
| East London than you do for vehicle tax.
|
| Most government websites do use the same frontend toolkit
| (a rare win for UK governmental IT) but front completely
| separate systems.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _All it takes is one breach or vulnerability and then
| yes, they DO have access to all your data._
|
| No they don't. If they breach the health system, they don't
| have access to tax returns.
|
| Just because people are identified by a single ID number
| doesn't mean all their data is being stored on the same
| server. And for purely organizational reasons, that's
| incredibly unlikely to happen.
|
| And I don't know what you mean by "steal your identity".
| People's names are date of birth are generally a pretty
| unique identifier already. It doesn't really matter if
| systems use that or a single ID number to identify you, or
| if hackers look you up by your name.
| 9x39 wrote:
| When a credential is stolen, its validity across multiple
| unrelated services is often checked by credential
| stuffing. That's just one type of simple attack.
|
| Has cybercrime been rendered obsolete with a government
| credential? Why is this master account immune to theft?
| On the contrary, it appears to be a credential that once
| stolen, could be more impactful than having your primary
| email account and phone compromised.
|
| It's reasonable to be concerned even just from an infosec
| perspective.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Is this a _could_ happen or _has_ happened type problem?
|
| I'm trying to understand if it is speculative or if we
| have a base-rate for occurrence.
| EasyMark wrote:
| But that's -likely- what it means in the near future, along
| with 24/7 tracking via observation posts along streets and
| highways. I wonder when people will start realizing a smaller
| government is a better government and vote accordingly. When
| things make a task "easier for the government" your ears
| should prick up and you should start paying attention.
| Today's "more efficient democracy" makes for tomorrow's "more
| efficient autocracy" when everything is already in place
| drnick1 wrote:
| > The worst part is that we no longer have any power to do
| something about it.
|
| Perhaps it is time for the Greek to dust off their guillotines.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| Maybe I'm too cynical but from where I'm sitting Google and
| Apple already have all the info about citizens in a giant
| database that they use for their own purposes. Why are we upset
| that the government might create a more limited database?
|
| The cows are long since out of the barn on "don't collect a
| giant database of everyone's personal information"
| sterlind wrote:
| I'm upset by all of it, which is why I've de-Googled.
| ninalanyon wrote:
| Because Google and Apple can't use it to control where and
| with whom you work, live, play, etc., but the government can.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| a) The government can subpoena Google, Apple etc. for
| whatever information they want - or not even subpoena,
| often they ask nicely and the companies hand over any data
| requested.
|
| b) Many people are extremely angry about immigration. They
| very much _want_ the government to control "where and with
| whom [certain other people] work, live, play"
| alfor wrote:
| Digital ID is the pattern of the mark in revelation.
|
| Once you let go of God (worship of truth and love) the government
| or other totalitarian force will try to control people top down.
| The logical way is to identify them.
|
| You go from a system of free will and distributed cognition to
| one of enforcement top down. New things can always be added to it
| as you don't control it. All the "problems" of the states will
| tag along.
|
| Making it digital is way worse than anything before because it
| allow to control you without having to pay a cost in enforcement,
| you control the flow of money, of exchange, you let the computer
| control people allowing a system so top down the Nazi and
| communist couldn't even imagine.
|
| Worse part, it's already there for sure but in shadow form, they
| have all the info about the people, it's just not tied to
| financial transactions and out there in the public.
| surfingdino wrote:
| It's interesting how an idea almost nobody wants to see
| implemented in practice keeps coming back thanks to the efforts
| of the person most of the country, including his own party would
| rather forget.
| ktosobcy wrote:
| UK's (and USA's) aversion to state ID is quite amusing... and
| then solving everything that not-having-national-ID causes
| requires absurd solutions... but hey "ID is the worst thing ever"
| bArray wrote:
| In the UK, the individual never used to interact with their
| government at all. We value our privacy and lack of government
| interference, and everything was legal unless it was explicitly
| outlined as illegal. It was a high trust society.
|
| Since being forced into globalisation and the concept of a
| border being essentially abolished (of course unless you talk
| about Ukraine, in which case billions can be spent on enforcing
| it), everything is flipped on its head. The terrorism act means
| that you have no right to silence, no right to legal
| representation and you are compelled to provide your passwords.
| The government now gets further and further involved with
| private matters, such as what content you engage with online
| (online safety act) and have plans to force ID to be linked to
| social media.
|
| In my area, you cannot walk into a GP and request an
| appointment, they tell you to go away. You have to install an
| app, link it to your details, provide evidence of who you are,
| go on video, wait a few days, and then you are allowed to
| request an appointment (in a few weeks time). Bare in mind that
| healthcare is denied to nobody in the UK.
|
| This year the Legal Aid Agency had a large cyber security
| breach [1]. People's names, financial information, and the fact
| that they apply for legal aid was breached. One of the few
| reasons you can get Legal Aid is being a domestic abuse victim.
|
| > This data may have included contact details and addresses of
| applicants, their dates of birth, national ID numbers, criminal
| history, employment status and financial data such as
| contribution amounts, debts and payments. In some instances,
| information about the partners of legal aid applicants may be
| included in the compromised data.
|
| This same government wants to collect and centralise the
| private details of all citizens in the UK. It makes me sick.
|
| [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/legal-aid-agency-data-
| bre...
| ktosobcy wrote:
| > Since being forced into globalisation
|
| You mean the time when the UK concquered the whole world and
| formed "The empire on which the sun never sets"? Yeees... UK
| was forced into globalization xD
|
| Alas, any country where "doing anything unless it's
| forbidden" results in a clusterf* that the USA is today, and
| it has nothing to do with trust or being "civilized"
|
| As for breaches - you are aware that the civilized society
| can have national IDs - plastic one, issued by the state that
| are used for... well... IDentification that don't require
| uber-surviliance and centralizing data worse than in China?
| Just because UK does something stupid (and it's on a record
| roll past decades) doesn't mean that the concept of ID is
| wrong... For example in Poland and in Spain you can easily
| get doctors appointment just by showing up and waving your
| ID...
| boxerab wrote:
| "Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has
| never been better"
| vixen99 wrote:
| https://www.ft.com/content/b8c02080-a290-4af7-9702-03230aa9c...
|
| "Hackers obtained the details of tens of millions of British
| voters in a "complex cyber attack" on the Electoral Commission
| that went undetected for more than a year, the elections watchdog
| admitted on Tuesday. The body said "hostile actors" first
| breached its network in August 2021, gaining access to its file-
| sharing and email systems and obtaining copies of the electoral
| register, but "suspicious activity" was not identified until
| October 2022."
|
| Of course such a thing will never happen in relation to Digital
| ID Cards, will it?
| prmph wrote:
| I don't know what western countries are thinking. The concept of
| an isolated nation state is fast approaching obsolescence. Very
| soon, it will be clear that it is meaningless to put strong
| restrictions on the free movement of people. And history shows
| that an emphasis on keeping people out is a precursor to the
| decline of an empire.
|
| One thing I never understand: if people want to come to your
| country, that is a vote for the idea that you are doing something
| right. So, why not use for good? Why not designate a area of the
| country for the immigrants to initially settle in, using your
| laws and structures to provide them a better way to live? They
| are usually very hungry to work. Or, why not band up with other
| countries to establish refuge cities where the immigrants can
| initially settle and build new lives?
|
| You never hear of the US etc investing in infrastructure in
| African countries, for e.g., it is always about a militarization
| effort to contain supposed terrorists.
|
| Keeping people out betrays that your "success" is built on the
| back of exfiltrating resources from around the world and
| concentrating it in your countries, thus keeping the rest of the
| world poor.
| basisword wrote:
| There are many legal routes to immigration and seeking asylum.
| People choose to move illegally because they won't succeed on
| the legal routes and know that once they're in the country the
| chance of them being deported is pretty low.
| array_key_first wrote:
| The legal routes are also often strenuous, far too long
| lived, overly strict, and obtuse.
|
| If you barely speak the language, it's not easy.
| Unfortunately many countries have made immigration so hard,
| in an effort to combat it, that they've done the opposite -
| people immigrate illegally because it has a higher success
| rate than doing it legally.
|
| If I apply for X, Y, and Z and I'm denied, I'm fucked. But if
| I just move... And then figure it out later... That might
| work better.
|
| And that's how we got into this mess. A lot of this anti-
| immigration legislation actually increases the incentives for
| illegal immigration.
| bowmessage wrote:
| > But if I just move... And then figure it out later...
| That might work better.
|
| Yes, that's the part that needs to be fixed.
| prmph wrote:
| It cannot be "fixed" without turning the country into a
| fortress.
| prmph wrote:
| Exactly, and one more thing: because of draconian
| immigration regimes, once people sneak in, they are
| extremely unlikely to move out until they get some sort of
| residence, which may never come. If it was easier to get
| in, people will come and go as needed, and you wouldn't
| have massive numbers of people coming and not leaving.
| There are many irregular immigrants that are stuck in their
| new countries for decades, unable to move anywhere else at
| all; many even die without seeing their homeland again.
|
| In all countries there are posh, elite, nice areas, and yet
| you don't see everybody moving into those areas until there
| is no standing room. There is a natural equilibrium that is
| effective.
|
| So overly tough immigration policies actually exacerbate
| the problem of illegal immigration in this way as well.
| prmph wrote:
| Wow, this statement is so out of touch I don't even know
| where to begin to rebut it.
|
| I, a software engineer with decades of experience, and now an
| entrepreneur having a small startup, with funds to live for
| years without burdening the public purse anywhere, specking
| virtually native level English, and having previously lived
| in the US for years, would still have a _very_ hard time
| immigrating to any western country right now, partly because
| I'm from the global south (I'm Ghanaian).
|
| If you know of any western country where moving there, even
| temporarily, is as simple as applying with my information,
| let me know.
| drnick1 wrote:
| And, of course, that digital ID will require an "approved app"
| (blessed by Apple and Google) running on an unrooted phone. Don't
| want spyware running on your phone? Too bad.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Huh? Spyware, ransomware, etc. is a dangerous problem _on_
| rooted phones. It 's the unrooted ones that have protections
| against it.
| EasyMark wrote:
| They're talking about government spyware. Why not install a
| little bit extra into that digital ID app
| baobun wrote:
| Is this conjecture (I don't doubt it) or do you have a
| reference?
| Edmond wrote:
| This doesn't have to be scary, you can pair this with
| cryptographic certificates to get rigorous privacy:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44723418
|
| You use the ID to create an IRL identify anchor certificate, then
| use other certificates with varying privacy profiles that are
| then cryptographically linked to your identity but in a privacy
| preserving manner.
| reorder9695 wrote:
| I am not going to download an app to work. If they need some form
| of ID they can provide me a physical one, oh wait that sounds
| like an NI number. What's the point of this again?
| randerson wrote:
| Isn't a larger issue the number of immigrants who are NOT
| contributing to the economy, living at taxpayers' expense, with
| many immigrants engaging in crime? The other complaint I often
| see is immigrants' failure to assimilate to British norms,
| language, and culture. People who complain about these things
| seem to often run into the UK's limitations on freedom of speech.
|
| The UK must surely have satellites or drones that can spot boats
| of migrants coming in via France. Being an island has advantages!
| For those already there, they could have a zero tolerance
| approach to crime by illegal or temporary immigrants. They could
| create a polite British form of ICE who find people for whom they
| have no documentation and give them 24 hours to prove they're
| allowed to be there. Everybody legal is in a government database
| of some sort.
|
| This ID card seems like maximum effort, and high risk, but
| minimal impact.
| v3xro wrote:
| > living at taxpayers' expense
|
| Presumably the form for applying for benefits has a reasonably
| high bar for identifying the fact that you are in fact legally
| present in the country? Or how else do you imagine people
| living at "taxpayer's expense"? Just begging on the streets?
| gretch wrote:
| If they have a medical incident and go to a hospital
| emergency room, are they treated?
| kimixa wrote:
| Yes, but generally a Medical Incident isn't really
| particularly desirable. You don't really get anything out
| of it other than "being healthy", which could be argued as
| being a right, and often a prerequisite for _starting_ to
| contribute. Gatekeeping that just ensures they never will.
| Muromec wrote:
| That's the abuse of my tax money I can allow according to
| my beliefs, religious or otherwise.
| throwaway150 wrote:
| Do you know how much money the immigrants pay as taxes,
| health surcharge and National Insurance contributions in
| exchange for the right to live and work in the UK? Don't
| forget that the taxes, health surcharge and NI
| contributions of the immigrations are literally funding the
| NHS! I think it is fair to expect the contributors to get
| treatment when they are contributing so much to it.
| aucisson_masque wrote:
| In my experience, immigrants have low paying jobs and
| regularly use cash to avoid paying taxes. Most have no
| sense whatsoever of cohesion with the country they live
| in and instead make groups of similar culture that don't
| really try to fit in.
| throwaway150 wrote:
| All my immigrant friends are skilled workers who earn
| more than an average citizen, contribute more taxes and
| pay exorbitant fees for visa, health surcharge and NIC. I
| am sure there are immigrants in low paying jobs too.
| Perhaps we need to talk about different types of
| immigrants rather than clubbing them all into one
| "immigrant" category and reinforcing the same tired
| tropes about immigrants.
| randerson wrote:
| This thread is about illegal immigrants. If your friends
| paid for visas, that would imply they are in a different
| immigrant category than what we're discussing.
| tripplyons wrote:
| The streets themselves are maintained at the expense of
| taxpayers, regardless of who is begging on them.
| sterlind wrote:
| consuming oxygen produced by great British trees, too! when
| will the freeloading stop?
| crimsoneer wrote:
| Crime is literally at all time lows
| logicchains wrote:
| The number of rapes is at an all time high, increased more
| than fourfold in the last couple decades:
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/283100/recorded-rape-
| off...
| paxys wrote:
| Considering that up until a couple decades ago women would
| be ostracized from society for disclosing that they were
| raped, that isn't surprising.
| boringg wrote:
| Thats a bold statement - certainly possibly as a factor
| but to 4x it that seems unlikely. It sounds like you are
| callously dismissing valid concerns.
| paxys wrote:
| Why use absolute numbers rather than per capita?
|
| What is the link between rape and immigration?
| boringg wrote:
| I just overlaid that with the immigration into uk with that
| chart (both from statista) - charts are disturbingly
| similar trend. I would hope that its correlation and not
| causation but its definitely eye opening and kind of
| concerning.
|
| Assuming statista is a legit data source.
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| I will share with you this site, which will hopefully
| make a robust point about why you should not do this:
| https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
| boringg wrote:
| That is a depressing chart.
| j-krieger wrote:
| It looks like this in every western country right now.
| kypro wrote:
| I assume you're not from the UK?
|
| If we wanted we could stop illegal immigration extremely fast -
| as you say we are an island so it's relatively easy to stop
| people arriving. We don't need drones. At the moment after the
| French have given life-jackets to the illegal migrants and
| their boats have set off into the British channel, the people
| smugglers will call the British coast guard and ask them to go
| pick up the migrants they're smuggling into the country. The UK
| coast guard then picks them up and escorts them safely to
| shore. From here the police will be waiting, not to arrest
| them, but to take them to their hotel and give them a hot meal.
| Shortly after this charities in the UK will give them phones
| (typically iPhones), clothes and bikes to get around. The
| government will also give them some spending money to spend in
| our towns and cities.
|
| We obviously don't have to do any of this and ID cards wouldn't
| stop any of this. We choose to do this and this is why they
| come.
|
| However between the various reports of migrant hotel stabbings,
| thefts, sexual assaults, and rapes of children, it's been
| discovered that some migrants have been working in the UK -
| primarily in the gig economy. All of the things I've said to
| this point are not deemed issues and the government has no
| intention in changing them, but the fact that a small
| percentage of the migrants coming here are working has caught
| the eye of our politicians who have stated very strongly that
| they would prefer the migrants coming here don't work. The
| digital ID cards will hypothetically help with this "problem"
|
| It's hard to explain to people outside the UK how strange this
| place is. Most countries want a controlled immigration system
| and treat border security as a national security priority, and
| when they do allow immigrants into the country they almost
| always want them to work and pay their own way. The UK
| basically does the inverse of this. The explanation varies
| between some combination of letting hundreds of thousands of
| Afghans into the country is the right thing to do, to it's the
| law so there's nothing we can do about it.
|
| Legal note:
|
| This is not an anti-migration post. I am pro-migration.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| The French have no incentive to do the British immigration
| authorities' job for them. In fact, Britain very recently
| loudly quit an multilateral alliance that involved -- among
| other things - common migration policy.
|
| Why shouldn't France give life jackets and boats to people
| who want to leave France?
| kypro wrote:
| I agree. I think the French are doing the right thing here.
| I only mentioned it because it's one of the many things
| governments do which encourage and normalise more coming.
|
| British politician could try to strike a deal with the
| French to stop them helping individual who try to enter the
| UK illegally, but obviously it would only make sense for
| them to do that if the British were also trying to stop
| people entering the country illegally. Like you say, we
| can't expect the French to defend UK borders.
|
| In regards to leaving the EU this wouldn't change the
| situation meaningfully, it would just allow for more
| cooperation in how illegal migrants are distributed across
| Europe. Like the UK, EU countries are also legally not
| allowed to deport Afghans. It's not as if the EU doesn't
| face similar problems.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| The UK would arguably benefit from being able to
| redistribute migrants to other less-popular EU nations.
| For reasons inexplicable to me, many people seem keen on
| migrating to the UK.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| > Isn't a larger issue the number of immigrants who are NOT
| contributing to the economy,
|
| The bigger issue is people not contributing to the economy.
| Let's not peg laziness as an immigration problem because
| British people are equally lazy.
|
| > The other complaint I often see is immigrants' failure to
| assimilate to British norms, language, and culture.
|
| If we forced people to conform to British norms then we
| wouldn't enjoy the variety of takeaways that Brits have enjoyed
| for decades. Which is ironic because a kebab is now considered
| a British norm for post drinking meals.
|
| Plus it's not as if British people are particularly good at
| integrating with other cultures. Most Brits can't even speak a
| second language and don't even attempt to learn the customs and
| language of any other countries they visit.
|
| > People who complain about these things seem to often run into
| the UK's limitations on freedom of speech.
|
| I think the opposite is the problem. People have been far too
| vocal about the mythical problems that immigrants bring and
| anyone who attempts to present actual facts gets shot down as
| "woke" or "leftard" etc.
|
| We need to stop blaming other people for our own problems.
| shoobiedoo wrote:
| Holy mother of [citation needed]. "Brits are just as lazy!
| Brits never conform when abroad! But it's YOU not showing
| facts!"
| hnlmorg wrote:
| Immigrants take on lower paid jobs that Brits never apply
| for. There's been countless examples of this reported.
| randerson wrote:
| Major difference between visiting a place and emigrating
| there. How many cultures actually learn another language just
| to go on their annual vacation? You seem to be arguing
| simultaneously that the Brits are worse than average when it
| comes to adapting to local norms as tourists, while also
| suggesting that the people moving to Britain permanently
| shouldn't have to?
|
| There's nothing wrong with a culture adapting over time
| without losing their identity, like your example of Brits
| deciding to add the kebab. But a small country can't preserve
| their identity when they are overloaded by so many immigrants
| coming in at once who FORCE their ways on their new home.
| Think of it as Push vs Pull, there's a difference.
|
| Every country having a unique culture makes the world more
| interesting. Imagine how boring it would be if you saved up
| for a trip to Japan/Kenya/Chile/etc, only to find that almost
| everyone there was a white English-speaking American living
| the exact same lifestyle you have at home? Leftists would in
| that case be empathetic toward the remaining indigenous
| minority who feel their historic way of life was killed off
| against their will. Why should it be any different if you
| swap the country and nationalities in this example to what is
| happening in the UK?
|
| I am an immigrant myself, and a fairly liberal one at that.
| But I made the effort to come to my new home legally and
| assimilate to the best of my ability. I'm not sure why I
| should hold others to a lower standard.
| paxys wrote:
| Inability to work is going to be a far bigger deterrance to
| illegal immigration than any kind of border control you can put
| up. Regardless of all the propaganda immigrants aren't coming
| into the country in droves to bum around, commit crimes and get
| free services from the government. They _want_ to be able to
| work and live a normal life. If you deny them that, they will
| look elsewhere.
| kypro wrote:
| > they want to be able to work and live a normal life.
|
| They want to live a normal life by who's standards? Ours or
| theres?
|
| As a Brit I've always thought I'd personally find it quite
| hard to assimilate into Afghani culture. I'm not sure I'd
| ever be okay with the idea that rape isn't a crime or that
| homosexuals should be killed. Just assimilating into a
| community where 99% of people around me support Sharia law
| would be difficult enough.
|
| Glad it's not a problem the other way around though.
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| Maybe your idea of afghani culture isn't exactly
| representative. Also likely that the immigrants' culture
| would differ from that of their native country.
| kypro wrote:
| The British government advises me against any travel to
| Afghanistan because Afghans might try to kill me. This is
| a country that fought a civil war in the pursuit of
| suppressing women's rights after all.
|
| > Also likely that the immigrants' culture would differ
| from that of their native country.
|
| https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/jun/16/donald-
| tru...
|
| I hope you're right and we're getting that 1% of moderate
| Afghans who just believe that homosexuality is wrong, not
| that it should be punishable by death.
|
| Could you do me a favour and ask yourself if you would
| take your wife and children on holiday to Afghanistan? Is
| the answer yes or no? If it's no, please explain why I
| should therefore be okay with my government allow
| undocumented Afghan men live in the hotel by my family?
| At a minimum should we not be vetting these people?
| ForHackernews wrote:
| Many of them are people who served alongside British
| forces, risking their lives to try and prevent the
| Taliban from turning Afghanistan back into a
| fundamentalist hellhole. They failed, the US failed, the
| UK failed, but I submit that most Afghan refugees have
| much more up-close-and-personal reasons to hate and fear
| Islamic fundamentalism than you do.
| j-krieger wrote:
| Every time I see a comment like this I wonder if they
| just don't know that countries like Afghanistan are on an
| explicit travel advisory list from basically any
| government, or if you just conveniently fail to mention
| it since it doesn't fit your narrative. My country -
| Germany - explicitely requests all Germans to leave
| Afghanistan at once. Why do you think that is?
| Paianni wrote:
| Be careful not to mix local customs and Sharia, very often
| they don't line up in Muslim-majority countries.
| parthdesai wrote:
| > The other complaint I often see is immigrants' failure to
| assimilate to British norms, language, and culture.
|
| I do get your point, as an Indian who migrated to Canada, it's
| one of my pet peeves where some of my relatives live in their
| enclave only, i.e. surround themselves with like minded
| Indians, but this is pretty ironic when it is coming from
| Brits.
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| _Isn 't a larger issue the number of immigrants who are NOT
| contributing to the economy, living at taxpayers' expense, with
| many immigrants engaging in crime?_
|
| No, this is not supported by any real evidence.
|
| _They could create a polite British form of ICE_
|
| I can think of few things the UK should do less than ape
| American attitudes to immigration currently.
| gorgoiler wrote:
| Leveraging a central authority to issue standardised, signed
| tokens to all citizens, then letting the public _and_ private
| sectors make use of it: that's something I could get behind!
|
| The government steps in solely to manage token issuance. New use
| cases appear as emergent properties. DebbiesDrawings.com lets you
| use your tokens to sign eCards. HMRC.gov.uk lets you use then to
| sign tax returns. RonsRentals.co.uk lets you use it to sign a new
| lease.
|
| In a pessimistic world, without watching the hyenas closely we
| end up with Capita or Accenture or Concentrica or Syntegrico (I
| made the last two up) syphoning off PS8bn to create proprietary
| tokens that can only be used with sanctioned government JavaBeans
| webcrap. It would also be fundamentally flawed and won't launch
| until 2037.
|
| With care, something really cool could happen.
| jama211 wrote:
| I find it hard to make a nuanced take without being downvoted
| sometimes, but I honestly both agree this is bad/not necessary,
| AND that half the people in here are worrying a little too
| much/being a bit too pessimistic about it. Can one not hold both
| of these opinions at the same time?
| wartywhoa23 wrote:
| First they deliberately flood Europe and UK with illegal
| immigrants.
|
| Then they demand that native citizens accept digital ID to solve
| that manufactured problem.
|
| But truly their evil genius lies in the fact that a hefty part of
| natives will dismiss and mock everyone who tells them this as a
| conspiracy theorist.
| CrzyLngPwd wrote:
| Illegal immigrants working illegally will continue to do so,
| since they don't care about the law, as demonstrated by arriving
| illegally.
|
| Anyway, according to some news stories, they don't need to work,
| since they get everything for free anyway.
| paxys wrote:
| Nothing is going to change unless you put the entire penalty of
| illegal employment on the _employer_. This could mean massive
| fines, shutting down the business and /or jail time. In the US
| hundreds of illegal workers are rounded up every day and
| jailed/deported while their employers get a slap on the wrist,
| and these employers then just turn around and hire more illegal
| immigrants. The overall problem goes unsolved.
| type0 wrote:
| UK is taking the worst ideas from Russia.
|
| Orwell is turning over in his coffin
| panny wrote:
| >Create problem
|
| >Provide "solution"
|
| A story as old as time.
| nextworddev wrote:
| Similar to e-verify?
| EasyMark wrote:
| Next comes sensors in said cards, if someone walks by an digital
| observation post without the card on them they will now be tagged
| by visual recognition and documented as illegal/possibly illegal
| until proven otherwise. Expect the database to record it and
| start drawing up statistics on said undocument individual. The
| undocumented police will be notified and be on alert to apprehend
| at first opportunity. Coming to you in 2030.
| xbar wrote:
| After the UK Post fiasco, I wonder if Hitachi is providing the
| software.
|
| My point: even if this was a good idea, it is easy to get the
| software wrong in a way that is a complete disaster.
| saltysalt wrote:
| The Empire Strikes Back
| Havoc wrote:
| Kinda ambivalent about it. The eu settled system used for those
| that stayed post brexit is basically already this except website
|
| Works ok
| gethly wrote:
| Do not worry, people. You can vote yourself out of this. Like,
| totally. Just vote harder.
| mettamage wrote:
| So is this like DigID as in the Netherlands? Or is this more far
| reaching?
| Tycho wrote:
| I don't understand what is wrong with this system:
|
| "Please employ me."
|
| "OK, fill out this form with your name, D.O.B. and national
| insurance number, and if it matches against the government
| database then you can have the job."
|
| What am I missing here? I suppose they could use someone else's
| details, but then HMRC should be able to easily see that the NI
| account seems to have multiple taxpayers.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-09-26 23:00 UTC)