[HN Gopher] UK Petition: Do not introduce Digital ID cards
___________________________________________________________________
UK Petition: Do not introduce Digital ID cards
Author : DamonHD
Score : 174 points
Date : 2025-09-28 18:01 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (petition.parliament.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (petition.parliament.uk)
| SilverElfin wrote:
| After seeing NUMEROUS video of UK police showing up at doorsteps
| like the gestapo, arresting or citing or intimidating people who
| are simply practicing free speech, I don't think anyone should
| support the government with a pathway to de-anonymize the web.
| Even if you support the current government, such powers will be
| used against you at some point.
| n4r9 wrote:
| I wonder how much you're loading into "simply practicing free
| speech".
| flir wrote:
| Look, I didn't _mean_ someone should actually burn down the
| building with the occupants still inside. It was satire!
| kimixa wrote:
| The last one that made the rounds here ended up being
| carefully cut to give a specific impression (and the initial
| presented commentary straight up lies), and when the "full
| story" came out it turned out to be a lot less "simply
| practicing free speech" than implied.
|
| But retractions never get the same visibility, and it's
| already made the impression they wanted the post to make.
|
| Not a great site but gives the gist:
|
| https://www.newsweek.com/british-police-explain-video-
| office...
| SilverElfin wrote:
| Go watch the videos and look up what was said. Most of them
| are clearly normal non violent free speech, but just
| politically not aligned to the current government's platform.
| I'm not saying all are just doing free speech but am
| confident about most.
| n4r9 wrote:
| In my experience, when someone has an extreme opinion and
| says "just watch this video", it's largely a waste of time.
| Video is too easily game-able as a medium.
| cortic wrote:
| It is a criminal offense in the UK to use insulting words in
| public, or to send any message online that anyone could find
| insulting or offensive (whether any one does or not is
| irreverent).
|
| The Online Safety Act and Hate Crime Provision have extended
| these somewhat into the realms of 1984. But the police do
| tend to use them sparingly.
| teamonkey wrote:
| > It is a criminal offense in the UK to use insulting words
| in public, or to send any message online that anyone could
| find insulting or offensive (whether any one does or not is
| irreverent).
|
| This is categorically untrue.
| oncallthrow wrote:
| The latter part at least is true. Sending "grossly
| offensive" messages is illegal under the Malicious
| Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003,
| specifically Section 127:
|
| > a person is guilty of an offence if he--
|
| > (a)sends by means of a public electronic communications
| network a message or other matter that is grossly
| offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing
| character; or
|
| > (b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
|
| I suspect the former is also true, but am not well-read
| in that area
| teamonkey wrote:
| "Grossly offensive" is absolutely not the same thing as
| "any message online that anyone could find insulting or
| offensive".
|
| > am not well-read in that area
|
| Correct.
| oncallthrow wrote:
| > "Grossly offensive" is absolutely not the same thing as
| "any message online that anyone could find insulting or
| offensive".
|
| There is no statutory definition of "grossly", so in
| effect it is the same. There is prior art for it being
| interpreted incredibly widely.
|
| Not to mention the other incredibly vague adjectives in
| the law.
|
| > Correct
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Don't
| be snarky".
| cortic wrote:
| Public Order Act 1986
|
| "insulting words or behavior that cause distress to
| others"
|
| Malicious Communications Act 1988 (Section 1):
|
| "Outlaws sending messages, electronic or otherwise, with
| the intent to cause distress, or anxiety"
|
| Communications Act 2003, Online Safety Act 2023, hate
| speech, terrorist legislation all made these many orders
| of magnitude worse in many ways.
| teamonkey wrote:
| You cannot be arrested for sending "any message online
| that anyone could find insulting or offensive". That's
| not what the law says. You can be arrested for spreading
| hate speech, inciting violence, sending illegal media or
| harassment online.
|
| All of the arrests mentioned in this thread in relation
| to these acts have been campaigns of intimidation,
| harassment and calls to violence, not simply saying
| something "insulting or offensive".
|
| In the UK political expression of free speech is
| protected by the ECHR, which overrides both those acts
| (look carefully who wishes to abolish the ECHR).
| SilverElfin wrote:
| > All of the arrests mentioned in this thread in relation
| to these acts have been campaigns of intimidation,
| harassment and calls to violence, not simply saying
| something "insulting or offensive"
|
| This is false. But even if it weren't, it would be
| unjust. Determinations like "hate speech" are subjective,
| and have no place in law concerning speech. Without free
| speech, there is no democracy.
| owisd wrote:
| There's no value in making insults _for the sake of being
| insulting_ protected speech, but in the UK if you 're
| making ECHR Article 10 protected speech that someone
| _happens_ to find insulting or offensive then that 's not a
| crime. It's unhelpful to permit insults as free speech to
| prevent some hypothetical future abuse, since all modern
| dictatorships pay lip service to free speech and instead
| lock up their political opponents for embezzlement or
| mortgage fraud or whatever.
| oncallthrow wrote:
| In many cases the "free speech" genuinely is racial hatred
| bordering on incitement.
|
| But on the other hand there genuinely have been many people
| arrested (and in some cases convicted) under these laws for
| statements that are shockingly milquetoast.
| kimixa wrote:
| > But on the other hand there genuinely have been many
| people arrested (and in some cases convicted) under these
| laws for statements that are shockingly milquetoast.
|
| Care to name some?
|
| The _vast_ majority of cases I 've looked into end up being
| a _lot_ more than the initially presented "They Were
| Arrested For Saying Bad Words On The Internet!" story
| pushed on the internet.
|
| In fact, I can't remember a single one where there _wasn
| 't_ a lot more, but that's not really more than anecdote.
| oncallthrow wrote:
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-
| west-46959556... is one example of a successful
| prosecution.
|
| There are many more cases of harassment by the police or
| arrests, the most recent example that comes to mind being
| Graham Linehan. These are clearly not as bad as
| prosecutions, but still create a chilling effect.
| jdietrich wrote:
| A number of people have been arrested, charged and
| convicted for things that were very obviously jokes -
| tasteless jokes, offensive jokes, but still just jokes.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_joke_trial
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_Dankula
|
| https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/glasgow-
| bin...
| raesene9 wrote:
| If you're looking for evidence of the UK gov's authoritarian
| tendencies, you don't need to go looking at videos on Youtube,
| just look at the number of arrests of peaceful protestors who
| were given charges under terrorism legislation for holding up
| banners or wearing T-Shirts mentioning "Palestine Action" (ref
| https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/25/fate-of-
| hund...).
|
| Or indeed in one notable case the person who was arrested for a
| T-Shirt about "Plasticine action"
| ChocolateGod wrote:
| They're supporting a specific group that went into a military
| base and damaged military equipment (that was irrelevant to
| palestine/israel), those people going out with those T-Shirts
| know exactly why the group was proscribed and are seeking to
| be arrested, why are we shocked they got arrested, they
| wanted it.
| raesene9 wrote:
| Put it this way, the UK managed to get through the
| troubles, which had a lot of events far more serious than
| what Palestine action have done, without needing this level
| of policing of free speech.
|
| The point I was making is that successive UK gov's are
| tending towards authoritarianism, the current one included.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| If you're trying to convince Brits not to enact these
| policies "you guys made it through The Troubles" is a
| _really bad_ argument unless you 're very unfamiliar with
| the body count and terror and the public perception of
| that period in British history. (it included some fifty
| thousand casualties and sixteen thousand bombings)
|
| An advocate of these policies would quite literally argue
| that not getting into something like The Troubles is the
| point and a lot of people would agree if that was what is
| on the horizon.
| raesene9 wrote:
| Can't say as I agree there. I was in the UK at the time
| (lived here all my life) and I'm fairly familiar with the
| horrors of the time.
|
| My point is we were able to get through something like
| that, which was very serious, without needing to
| proscribe free speech in the way that's being done now
| for some people putting paint on planes.
|
| So if we didn't need it for something that serious, we
| don't need it for this.
| LightBug1 wrote:
| Big fucking deal. Charge them with breaking / entering /
| vandalism then.
|
| They're not terrorists. Period.
|
| And we're not shocked they got arrested. We're shocked at
| the stupid decision that led to the proscription and
| subsequent arrests of pensioners holding a sign in support
| of Palestine Action.
| multjoy wrote:
| That's because Palestine Action are a proscribed group.
|
| Whether or not the proscription was correct is irrelevant,
| the current law means that you commit the same offence
| showing support for IS or the Terrorgram Collective.
|
| The police can't simply ignore one proscribed group over
| another as that leads to all manner of weird and wacky
| outcomes.
| raesene9 wrote:
| The legislation which causes anyone expressing support of a
| proscribed group is the authoritarian thing I'm talking
| about. The Terrorism Act 2000 as implemented is the
| problem.
|
| Having a law that means merely expressing support of a
| group, leads to criminal charges is not something I think
| should be in place in any country that pretends to support
| freedom of speech.
| michaelt wrote:
| But they're only a proscribed group because the cabinet
| decided it was politically convenient to proscribe them.
|
| It's not like these guys are the Taliban or the IRA, though
| some of them did chuck some paint on some planes.
|
| So a person who is worried about Starmer's authoritarian
| tendencies lay responsibility for the police action at the
| door of number 10.
| LightBug1 wrote:
| You're only looking at the symptom, not the cause.
|
| Who is doing the proscribing?
|
| /rhetorical
| vr46 wrote:
| Miles, who made the Plasticine Action shirts, is a FoF and
| we've all bought these shirts. The PA proscription is
| laughable.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Tweets - prison
|
| Assaulting and trying to stab a man burning a Quran - Suspended
| sentence
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8xr12yx5l4o watch the
| video and tell me this man should be A) not in prison and B) in
| the country after said prison sentence
| Stevvo wrote:
| Any young man would probably get an attempted murder charge
| for that. Very incendiary ruling; sort of thing that could
| start a riot.
| userbinator wrote:
| AIUI "practicing free speech" is mainly a US thing that doesn't
| map cleanly to other countries.
| dijit wrote:
| As well as the Estonia eID system works (aside from that time it
| got hacked[0] and that other time they leaked all the photos[1])
| and how well a digital (non-government) system works in
| Scandinavia... I have to say...
|
| As a Dual British/Swedish Citizen, I really do not trust the UK
| government. They have proven over and over and over, that at
| every opportunity presented they will increase their own
| authority. I don't believe I have personally witnessed _any_
| other advanced economy that so ardently marches towards
| authoritarianism.
|
| So, no matter if it's a good idea or not. I can't in good faith
| advise the UK having more powers. Unfortunately the UK government
| themselves can sort of just grant themselves more power. So...
|
| [0]: https://e-estonia.com/card-security-risk/
|
| [1]: https://therecord.media/estonia-says-a-hacker-
| downloaded-286...
| mothballed wrote:
| Many of the former colonies of the UK have chosen to secede
| from the UK.
|
| Is there any chance England might too?
| dijit wrote:
| No, English people still somehow tie their identity to the UK
| Government somehow.
|
| Scotland will not be granted another independence _vote_ for
| at least 15 years, despite the last one being build upon a
| house of lies and nobody knows anything about what the Welsh
| think.
|
| I do think we're witnessing the collapse of the UK, but more
| like a Roman Empire collapse - as in it's happening over
| decades. Dying with a whimper, not a bang.
| Bender wrote:
| Scotland needs to reinstate their king and conquer England
| to right the wrongs.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| That already happened: James VI of Scotland inherited the
| English (and Irish) throne. There's a pedantic sense in
| which the current English king is actually the Scottish
| king, not the other way around (although stronger
| pedantry would say the Hanoverian succession is
| sufficient to prove that whole line of reasoning a load
| of tosh). What would restoring the Scottish monarchy mean
| to you?
| Bender wrote:
| _What would restoring the Scottish monarchy mean to you?_
|
| Fully reclaim Scotland's historical sovereignty, create a
| clear and distinct break with the rest of the United
| Kingdom and breaking English narratives.
|
| My first act as king would be to build hundreds of
| underground nuclear and geothermal power plants, sever
| all connections to England, build massive data-centers
| and under ground cities to wait out WWIII. I would also
| build a giant rollar coaster than spans the entire
| country, under ground with trippy visual effects and
| stops at numerous malls, coffee shops and other amusement
| destinations. I would run under ground fiber to every
| location on earth as well as high speed transport tubes,
| 90% of which would arrive at secret locations around the
| world. One never knows where the Scots will appear. I
| would fund all of this _pissing away the gold and gems_
| using the wealth of the English crown. Every home would
| have free 400gb /s IPv6 internet. Oh and I would purchase
| and relocate every private military contractor from the
| USA into Scotland. My military would be entirely private
| and for-profit. We would fund our operations by siphoning
| processed fuel, oil and other resouces from other nations
| pipes via our underground tunnels. Immigration policy
| will be an app that only citizens of Scotland may utilize
| to swipe left or right on applicants. The app may also be
| used to eject existing people. That's Q1. Q2 through Q4
| would be extending the borders of the nation to include
| the entire land mass under every ocean and growing the
| population to 10 billion from weekend orgies.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| I see your cunning plan - post on HN this week, get hired
| to write Nigel Farage's next manifesto the week after.
|
| The swipe left or right on immigration requests is a vote
| winner ! Simon Cowell can host it weekly...
| thebruce87m wrote:
| But how do we decide on which one of the proclaimers it
| would be?
| tolien wrote:
| Leith to London isn't that far away from 500 miles.
| f4c39012 wrote:
| a walk-off. First to 1,000 miles
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| Northern Ireland also exists!
| dijit wrote:
| Sorry, just like every politician and mainland company: I
| forgot about Northern Ireland :(
| ifwinterco wrote:
| If I had to guess I would think it would collapse more like
| the USSR, from the centre, with the english withdrawing
| their support for a british state that no longer serves
| their interests
| dalke wrote:
| The Swedish non-government system (BankID) doesn't work well
| for me. My Swedish identity must not be dependent on the
| permission of a US company nor the US government, while BankID
| requires both.
|
| So far my BankID boycott is over a year old, and my resolve
| grows as I read more of the news.
| dijit wrote:
| Ask your bank for a pin machine, you can get a chip and pin
| machine to solve BankID challenges.
|
| The machine itself is likely manufactured in China, but it's
| of no consequence. You wouldn't be able to communicate with
| me if you didn't use chinese products at all.
| dalke wrote:
| You mean Bank-id pa kort?
| https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank-id#Bank-id_pa_kort says
| it only supports MS Windows and MacOS, not Linux.
|
| Fundamentally though, that doesn't change the fact that the
| US can order a Swedish bank to either freeze access to a
| customer or the bank can no longer do business in the US.
| earthnail wrote:
| I once had my bank close my account because of a mistake they
| made (I can provide the background but it's just a
| facepalming story). That meant my Bank ID was closed down,
| too.
|
| I asked for an appointment with the bank to resolve it but
| was told I can only get an appointment with Bank ID.
|
| It was outrageous. Obviously none of the other services
| worked either. Luckily I still had a British and a German
| credit card that I used for payments (since I lived in both
| those countries before). In the end I opened an account with
| another bank and moved on. Although I did try, furiously, for
| two weeks to get my old bank to admit their mistake and
| rectify it. No chance. If they had admitted it it would've
| meant they would have broken financial regulation, and
| obviously you don't admit to that if you don't have to.
|
| Bank ID is great when it works and brutal when it doesn't.
|
| I actually don't have a better proposal for a system since it
| works quite well in most cases, but just wanted to share my
| bad experience on it too.
| raesene9 wrote:
| The thing is, to me, the powers of the government to require
| more identification for different things is orthogonal to the
| idea of digital ID. We already have to identify ourselves in a
| variety of circumstances (e.g. mortgages, bank accounts,
| voting, using "adult" websites etc), and the gov. can get the
| information from various third parties on demand already.
|
| Implementing those requirements didn't depend on there being a
| digital ID system. Instead we have a hodge podge of bad
| requirements (like "wet" signatures on specific documents,
| using of non-UK based private providers etc).
|
| Implementing a digital ID system could reduce inequalities (for
| example, people who don't have passports and driver's licenses
| have more difficulties in some circumstances) and also reduce
| dependencies on non-UK orgs who may not do that well with
| privacy.
|
| That's not to say there aren't risks of course, but other
| European countries seem to have managed to implement these
| systems without becoming totalitarian police states :)
| Arch-TK wrote:
| Reduce dependencies on non-UK orgs by increasing dependencies
| on Google and Apple ... which are ... hold on a minute...
| raesene9 wrote:
| TBH the mobile duopoly isn't a problem specific to the UK
| gov, and plenty of the systems already in use which have a
| mobile component already have that dependency, so I don't
| think it really gets any worse if you had a digital ID.
|
| Indeed if done with physical smart card + reader, it would
| reduce the requirement for mobile devices, allowing for
| people unhappy with their presence to avoid them :)
| Arch-TK wrote:
| I currently live in the UK, and I am not significantly
| restricted from anything (banking, ISAs, investments,
| healthcare, etc) for refusing to use a Google approved
| build of Android.
|
| Moreover, I actually on principle refuse to make myself
| dependant on my phone for these things, which means that
| (at a small convenience cost) I don't have any banking
| apps, or investment apps, or healthcare apps, or
| whatever).
|
| My phone is strictly a general computing device and I on
| principle only permit a technology into my life if it
| doesn't impose special restrictions on the
| hardware/software it works with.
|
| So if the UK government creates a digital ID app which
| only runs on a phone and which potentially only runs on
| google/apple approved phone (this is e.g. the requirement
| imposed by google pay), then that would be unprecedented.
| raesene9 wrote:
| Oh I agree a system, if implemented, should not depend on
| a tie to Apple or Google, however, I'm not aware that
| detailed implementation guidance has been produced as yet
| which would require that tie, although I could have
| missed that.
|
| I'd hope that a system as implemented is as
| technologically neutral as possible.
|
| Good on you for avoiding the smartphone tie on banking
| though, it's getting increasingly hard for decent MFA not
| to tie to it in some way or another, and travel's a right
| pain without the smartphone apps.
| Arch-TK wrote:
| They haven't specifically said anything, but they have
| directly compared the ID to phone based payment card
| systems, which on the google side do rely strictly on a
| google-blessed android build[0][1][2].
|
| It's also incredibly popular in the security industry (I
| know, I work in it) to claim that every possible app in
| existence must:
|
| * Obfuscate
|
| * Do root detection and refuse to work
|
| * Detect attempts to attach a debugger, and refuse to
| work
|
| * Detect running from a VM, and refuse to work
|
| * Do certificate pinning (although as an industry we've
| stopped recommending this bullshit practice, although we
| still insist on it for some things)
|
| * Prevent screenshots from being taken
|
| * Force you to re-authenticate using biometric ID every
| time you look away from the app
|
| * and... break at the slightest hint of a non-standard
| build of android
|
| So I don't have high hopes, because the company I work
| for does work for the UK government, will likely be
| picked to review this app, and inevitably all that shit
| is what we'll recommend (although I hope I won't be
| working here by then because I'm just sick and tired of
| cargo cult / checkbox security).
|
| [0]: Not because of any specific feature, but solely
| based on signing keys.
|
| [1]: I believe specifically you have to license GMS
| integrate them into the build, which e.g. GrapheneOS does
| not do.
|
| [2]: And no, GOS's sandboxed google services don't fix
| this problem, Google Pay will still refuse to work.
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| > ...powers of the government to require more identification
| for different things is orthogonal to the idea of digital ID
| > That's not to say there aren't risks of course, but other
| European countries seem to have managed to implement these
| systems without becoming totalitarian police states :)
|
| Yet also: a country's requirement for identification is
| orthogonal to it becoming a totalitarian police state.
|
| In British politics, there is a strong current of opposition
| to international institutions and treaties such as the
| European Convention on Human Rights[1][2] and the
| International Criminal Court[3]. The UK's commitment to human
| rights is enough in doubt that one encounters situations such
| as German courts being unable to extradite a suspected
| criminal because of the poor treatment of prisoners in
| Britain[4].
|
| Countries like Germany and Belgium are able to have mandatory
| ID cards without too much issue because of characteristics
| including their written (and actively litigated)
| constitutions, judicial independence and proportionally
| representative election systems. ID cards might be make them
| lean more or less totalitarian - but it doesn't matter as
| much, as the rules about identification make up only a small
| part of a huge and robust framework of law and human rights.
|
| With few constitutional protections for UK citizens, and what
| independent institutions there are under constant attack from
| various political parties, I don't think those who object to
| digital ID can be blamed for being suspicious of the
| government's motivations.
|
| [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/25/tory-
| candid...
|
| [2]: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/08/21/labour-
| mp-eu...
|
| [3]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/3/threats-and-
| intimida...
|
| [4]: https://eucrim.eu/news/german-court-denies-extradition-
| to-uk...
| raesene9 wrote:
| Yeah i don't disagree about the UK government tendencies,
| my point is more that they can be authoritarian without
| digital id and our current systems are not fit for purpose
| and a digital ID can help people who have problems fitting
| in with current system requirements like passports and
| drivers licenses which are not free or universal.
| dijit wrote:
| I would really agree with you, as a person who was born into
| the underclass I know full well the barrier to entry of
| getting a "first person in the family" passport and a drivers
| license has somehow lower hurdles (but those are well known).
|
| However, as mentioned, I can't in good faith argue for the
| government to have an easier time categorising people. Such a
| system is so ripe for abuse. I have even advocated for it
| based on the Estonian eID system and the Swedish BankID
| (though I am aware of Danish and Norwegian BankID- I never
| used those).
|
| I'm still fully convinced that the British "Online Safety
| Bill" is actually a ploy to ensure that they have linked
| accounts to identity on any site where comments can be made;
| so they can prosecute people for expressing opinions[0]. Why
| else go for Wikipedia, and why else focus on sites with
| public commentary. You can't say it's to prevent pedophiles
| when with the right hand you imprison people for saying
| things online while with the left hand releasing actual
| pedophiles into society[1]
|
| To be fair, they _did_ say it wasn't primarily about
| protecting children[2], but then I guess I should figure out
| what else the OSA is for.
|
| [0]: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2025-
| 0022...
|
| [1]:
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/prisoners-
| ear... & https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce80nl1k0p3o
|
| [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44910285
| raesene9 wrote:
| The online safety act is a terrible piece of legislation,
| along with a variety of other ones promoted as being for
| "child safety" but having serious external consequences.
|
| But they implemented that act, without needing a digital
| ID. I don't think they need a digital ID to push
| authoritarian policies.
|
| And I think a digital ID has possible benefits for people
| who can't easily fit in to current setups, thus my point
| about it being orthogonal.
| dijit wrote:
| The Digital ID will make it so that there's no excuse for
| not connecting your identity to everything you do.
| raesene9 wrote:
| The conservatives didnt need digital id to make id a
| requirement for voting, labour didnt need digital id to
| introduce the online safety act. Im not convinced that
| lack of digital id will deter authoritarian tendencies in
| uk govs...
| mulmen wrote:
| It's not that the lack of digital ID prevents anything
| it's that the digital ID makes abuse _even easier_.
| jpat wrote:
| FYI, the conservatives introduced the Online Safety Act.
| Its provisions came into force under a labour government.
| scrlk wrote:
| > They have proven over and over and over, that at every
| opportunity presented they will increase their own authority. I
| don't believe I have personally witnessed any other advanced
| economy that so ardently marches towards authoritarianism.
|
| This has been a slow 111 year project. See the opening of A. J.
| P. Taylor's _English History 1914-1945_ :
|
| > Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could
| pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state,
| beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where
| he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity
| card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever
| without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could
| exchange his money for any other currency without restriction
| or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on
| the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a
| foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit
| and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the
| European continent, the state did not require its citizens to
| perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he
| chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He
| could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national
| defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on
| for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who
| wished to do so.
|
| > All this was changed by the impact of the Great War. The mass
| of the people became, for the first time, active citizens.
| Their lives were shaped by orders from above; they were
| required to serve the state instead of pursuing exclusively
| their own affairs. Five million men entered the armed forces,
| many of them (though a minority) under compulsion. The
| Englishman's food was limited, and its quality changed, by
| government order. His freedom of movement was restricted; his
| conditions of work prescribed. Some industries were reduced or
| closed, others artificially fostered. The publication of news
| was fettered. Street lights were dimmed. The sacred freedom of
| drinking was tampered with: licensed hours were cut down, and
| the beer watered by order. The very time on the clocks was
| changed. From 1916 onwards, every Englishman got up an hour
| earlier in summer than he would otherwise have done, thanks to
| an act of parliament. The state established a hold over its
| citizens which, though relaxed in peacetime, was never to be
| removed and which the second World War was again to increase.
| The history of the English state and of the English people
| merged for the first time.
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| I think even 111 years is being too cautious. One only needs
| to look as far as the numerous vagrancy laws in England to
| see how a citizen might be prevented from living "where he
| liked and as he liked". Persecution of minorities including
| 'witches', Gypsies and Jews has been a continual theme.
| England has had banned books, even banned translations of the
| Holy Bible.
|
| The Edwardian era was a very unusual period of liberality,
| I'll agree. But at least in that quote, Taylor is making some
| strange omissions that I hardly think are accidental: for a
| start, where is the mention of women's suffrage, introduced
| for the first time ever _after_ the Great War?
| Etheryte wrote:
| Having a vulnerability is very different to getting hacked
| though. To date, there hasn't been a single breach of Estonia's
| ID system itself as far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong? And
| that's saying something given the adversary is Russia. Reading
| through your link, the leaked pictures incident was a separate
| external service that's not tied to the ID system itself.
| skeletal88 wrote:
| Our system in Estonia works well.
|
| I don't get the resistance to a digital/national id in other
| countries. To us it is quite bizarre.
|
| Some have explained it with a lack of trust between citizens
| and the country.
|
| But without such digital id it is impossible to have such
| digital government services as we have here. The government
| services need to verify and autheticate the citizen, so they
| only access their own data and not someone who has the same
| name and birth date by accident.
|
| I don't see how such a system gives the government more powers.
| It already has all the data on its citizens, but it is spread
| out, fragmented, stored with multiple conflicting versions,
| maybe some of it is stored in databases where no one cares
| about security, etc.
| dijit wrote:
| Just like Britons can't imagine Estonia, I know you can't
| imagine Britain.
|
| In the UK there's a bunch of government and company
| databases, and coalescing them isn't just hard, in some cases
| it's not even possible.
|
| You can ask a company for specific details on a person, and
| they can make a "reasonable effort" to get the data. But if
| they mishandle the request (maybe your name has accents?)
| then the government gets no information.
|
| The easier it gets, the easier it can be for them to
| excercise power over you, and right now there's sufficient
| reason to be worried about that. The current government is
| liberally using the fascistic powers that the previous
| government created.
| Fade_Dance wrote:
| In the US we use a short number written on a paper card -
| social security numbers. It's a huge source of compromised
| security on every level from government services to corporate
| to personal data security.
| mulmen wrote:
| The US does not have a national ID. SSN was overloaded to
| fill the gap because "everyone has one".
| reorder9695 wrote:
| The UK government has justified this with reducing the amount
| of illegal workers. To work legally currently you need an NI
| number, this is not an improvement on that system other than
| requiring everyone to have a phone (probably with safetynet
| checks to ensure it can't be running a custom rom).
|
| I personally do not trust the government one little bit and
| am sure they'll find some way to abuse this, as they have
| just about everything else they do at this point. This
| possibly sounds far fetched, but why couldn't they ask for
| GPS permissions on the app then use it to quickly find out
| who was at a pro Palestine protest for example given their
| recent penchant for arresting protesters?
|
| They have given us no reason to believe things will improve
| with it's introduction, and have given us plenty of reasons
| to believe it will be abused. It's almost perfect for that,
| "install our software on the device you have most places you
| go, or you can't earn a living anymore".
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| >given their recent penchant for arresting protesters?
|
| A protest group attacked a military base causing PSmillions
| of damage. They got censured, as a terrorist organisation.
|
| "Protestors" decided they wanted to support that specific
| organisation, taking focus away from their message and
| chasing after something the government simply can't
| countenance: allowing protestors to ruin our defensive
| capabilities, at immense expense to the taxpayer, just to
| make some headlines.
|
| If these people cared about Palestinians then they should
| have given up supporting the proscribed 'terrorists' and
| protested in a way that didn't _require_ the government to
| crack down hard. Plenty of other non-proscribed protest
| groups are perfectly allowed.
|
| Private corporation's already know everywhere you go, if
| you have a mobile phone, or use a debit/credit card, or
| drive a car. The government already know where you work and
| when, if you pay your taxes.
|
| What Reform/Tories/right-wingers didn't want was any
| solution that would ease the problems they're using to try
| and rile the people into full culture wars. Labour are
| giving them what they [say they] want: making it harder for
| illegal immigrants, making it harder to claim benefits. But
| Farage isn't really there to solve a problem, here's there
| to create one as a means to weadle into power (presumably
| so he can refuse to do any useful work with that power, as
| he did in the EU) so he can fuck up the UK trying to be
| Trump 2 Fascist Boogaloo.
| gslepak wrote:
| > _I don 't get the resistance to a digital/national id in
| other countries. To us it is quite bizarre._
|
| It depends on the country and its relationship with the
| people. If the people trust that their government represents
| the people's interests, there is little push-back. In
| countries where citizens have reason to believe their
| government is hijacked by interests that do not have their
| best interests at heart, then every move is viewed with
| suspicion.
|
| In this case people are tying Digital ID to CBDCs and social
| credit systems, which is a reasonable thing to do, given this
| is exactly how China uses them to enforce 15-minute cities
| with checkpoints between them. All citizens conversations are
| tracked, their movements are restricted as well [1], and
| their ability to purchase goods & services are tightly
| regulated based on their behavior via the social credit
| system. This is the world that people who are pushing back
| against this are trying to avoid.
|
| [1] https://x.com/songpinganq/status/1972382547427590401
| majormajor wrote:
| Seems like a red-herring. Does a government _need_ a
| digital ID to do that? Many do that with the "free market"
| of publicly-tradable information + pre-existing government
| IDs already used for certain things. I don't know for sure
| how much the UK government is purchasing all that, but
| there's a lot of cameras and tech tracking in the country
| already, like those of us across the pond also are watched
| with.
|
| It won't _reverse_ surveillance states but fraud is _also_
| a huge problem that deserves addressing.
| exe34 wrote:
| if they want private information, they should buy it on
| the open market like every other company!
| iamnothere wrote:
| Yes, governments do need a centralized common identity
| for this. Those without adequate experience dealing with
| the US system, for instance, may assume that the
| government already has your info and thus such a system
| is redundant. However, this is simply not the case. US
| government systems are a hodgepodge of different systems
| built by different vendors, over different computing
| eras, many of which lack a primary key relationship with
| something like your social security number (the current
| "default" identifier). Many are plagued with duplicate
| records, data problems, and other issues that prevent
| easy correlation of records without human verification.
| Talk to some people in the IRS or Social Security and
| you'll quickly get a sense of how many problems this can
| create! Maybe it's improved since I last talked to people
| about it, but I doubt it.
|
| A central ID enforced on all systems by statute would
| significantly reduce the barrier to creating "airtight"
| oppressive systems. While the inefficiencies in the US
| system have a cost, certainly preventing the
| implementation of more efficient social benefit programs,
| they also provide a barrier against more efficient social
| repression. Given the political animosity present in the
| country right now, it's probably good that we don't have
| the ability to create a turnkey totalitarian system.
| Things are bad enough as is!
|
| More generally, in nations where the population feels
| suspicion towards their politicians and bureaucrats, the
| people may prefer to leave inefficiencies baked into the
| system in order to hamper potential oppression. Those
| social tensions and trust deficits should be resolved
| before proceeding with any ambitious central ID schemes.
| tombot wrote:
| UK already has a social credit system with our credit
| score, we even need to pay to see it.
| pipes wrote:
| That's a financial score based on previous financial
| transactions and contracts. It's a bit of a stretch to
| call it social.
| KoolKat23 wrote:
| The UK doesn't have a codified constitution and changes can
| generally be made with a simple majority. It's a bit more
| high stakes.
| mulmen wrote:
| > I don't get the resistance to a digital/national id in
| other countries. To us it is quite bizarre.
|
| I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this is a
| language barrier issue but this comes across as astonishingly
| narrow minded.
| antihipocrat wrote:
| Governments change. Any group in society has the potential to
| become marginalized, and if all services are funneled through
| a single system it becomes very easy to selectively switch
| off access.
| surfingdino wrote:
| Estonia (and now Ukraine) have worked on being able to do a
| "backup" of the country and a "restore" elsewhere if needed. (I
| am oversimplifying, but contingency plans have been part of the
| overall design that eID is a part of.) The UK doesn't have such
| designs and contingencies in place. The private sector is no
| better, every year there are major security breaches. It is
| premature to stick Digital ID onto a rickety network of badly
| secured databases.
| whitehexagon wrote:
| Signed, but I guess it is gonna be one of those where they keep
| asking until they get the answer they want.
|
| Where is the counter bill to block all future attempts of such
| privacy invading bills. Can the public draft new legislation like
| that? If so please ensures it blocks any dependency on smart
| phone ownership or other bigtech services.
| tialaramex wrote:
| Unlike the ludicrous US system with a "written constitution"
| that basically means a handful of unelected people get to
| overide all laws and say they're just "interpreting" as they
| ignore the plain words, the clear intent or any other obstacle
| to their Imperial Decree, the Parliament is literally
| Sovereign.
|
| So, if Parliament passes a Law tomorrow, miraculously by
| unanimous consent saying "The UK shall never have Digital ID"
| and insisting it denies itself any ability to make a law
| introducing such a thing - at any point it can also, despite
| that, pass law making a Digital ID by the narrowest majority,
| for example the day after.
|
| In fact not so very long ago this exact farce played out. The
| Liberal Democrats were in a situation where they could either
| join a coalition with the larger Conservative party and form a
| government _or_ they could say "No" and likely the populace
| has to do another election. Popular understanding was that
| British people _hate_ elections, and so if you insist on
| another one they will punish you, the Lib Dems did not want
| that. But, they were concerned that the Tories would betray
| them (predictably)
|
| So hence the 2011 "Fixed Term Parliaments Act". But although
| the Act says you can't just end parliament without a term
| ending, obviously Parliament can just pass a new law saying
| nah, changed our mind, which is what the 2019 "Early
| Parliamentary General Election Act" does and then the 2022
| "Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act" undid the whole
| pointless mess.
|
| Parliamentary sovereignty _might_ be able to take on limits via
| some sort of tradition over a long period. For example perhaps
| if Parliament had stuck with that Fixed Term rule for a few
| hundred years - it 'd settle as "Just how it is" and there'd be
| a serious argument that you can't just pass a law saying just
| this once as an exception we'll hold elections early. But "It
| was a few years ago" clearly doesn't cut it and that's what you
| would need for such a "counter bill".
|
| The best you can hope for is a pledge by politicians, which is
| worth slightly less than a piece of paper you wrote it on.
| poszlem wrote:
| Have any of those petitions ever changed anything? I might as
| well shout 'I don't want a digital ID' down the toilet, it'd be
| just as effective. And that's coming from someone who's against
| digital IDs.
| CaptainOfCoit wrote:
| > Have any of those petitions ever changed anything?
|
| What's the alternative? Not do anything and hope things change
| by themselves? Has that worked in the past? Is doing something
| than better nothing?
| luke727 wrote:
| Signing an online petition isn't better than doing nothing
| and is arguably worse.
| dazc wrote:
| Well, 2 million plus have signed the petition and 90% of
| those people will go along with the scheme when it is
| introduced - because it will be convenient to do so.
|
| Tell me how you plan to survive living off-grid whilst
| standing firm against it.
| redeyedtreefrog wrote:
| France, Germany, Sweden, Estonia and India already have
| government id. However, this being hackernews there will never be
| a link to a well researched article on the pros and cons of
| introducing id cards (digital or otherwise), only conspiracy
| theories and confident declarations that id cards are a surefire
| symbol of authoritarian states. I don't know what I think, I lack
| sufficient knowledge to have an opinion. But I still know
| approximately 10,000x more about UK politics, economics and
| immigration than 99% of the people commenting here.
| dazc wrote:
| The root of the issue is a mistrust of a Govt that has suddenly
| decided to rush through something, that was never discussed
| prior to the election, on the grounds that it will tackle
| illegal immigration, which it clearly will not.
| hollow-moe wrote:
| France Identite app is closed source, requires GMS and Play
| Integrity, and is only available on closed stores. It is not
| yet mandatory but who knows when it'll happen. No thanks.
| AJRF wrote:
| The labour government can not be challenged in any serious way
| until the next election in 4 years. Petitions don't really do
| anything, they will just say "no" to what the people ask for and
| move on with their agenda.
|
| It is disheartening to see this country follow the same path the
| US took, it seems as our politics become more polarised, the team
| sports aspect means we start seeing parties push through agendas
| while putting their fingers in their ears. It's so easy for a
| politician to point score by shooting down dissent as "the other
| side thinks this is bad, so it means it's good".
|
| The stated goal of Digital ID is to reduce illegal migrants from
| working, getting housing and using services. The obvious issue
| here is that they don't use traditional means to do this today,
| and it won't change with the introduction of this. They already
| hide from the state.
|
| If we had decent opposition they'd try to kill this by mandating
| it HAD to be used for voting, which Labour will absolutely not
| want.
|
| I would say 95% of my friend group were not born in this country,
| and the changes this government are making are pushing them to
| want to leave, and they are here legally, they have high paying
| jobs and skills and they feel unwanted.
|
| For the first time in my life it seems like it makes sense to
| join them.
| poszlem wrote:
| The most cynical part is that Labour spent years accusing the
| Tories of wanting to do this, then introduced it themselves,
| dressed up as a way to cut migration. And now, if you oppose
| the ID, they smear you as being pro-illegal immigration.
|
| This is some very impressive politicking and exactly why many
| people don't trust the mainstream political parties.
| mhh__ wrote:
| The immigration angle is a total fraud. If they wanted to do
| any of the things being implied they could have done so ages
| ago, they don't care. it's true that the ease of accessing
| the grey economy is a pull to the country but you can just...
| not let them in.
|
| edit: an interesting example of this that I find quite
| fascinating is that the amount of automation in things like
| car washing is _declining_ because the automatic ones are
| being undercut by quasi unregulated alternatives that don 't
| clean up the chemicals properly and so on
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| Regarding tackling illegal immigration the issue is that there
| are already ample and sufficients checks mandated by law so
| this would not change anything. Indeed the main issue is that
| there are dodgy employers and landlords who simply flunk the
| law and would oviously continue to do so and ignore Digital IDs
| all the same.
|
| Digital IDs would also be de facto mandatory for the majority
| of adult residents based on what they would be required for
| despite the government very clumsily saying otherwise.
|
| The government is simply being dishonest here so that should
| arouse suspicion...
| Spivak wrote:
| > Indeed the main issue is that there are dodgy employers and
| landlords who simply flunk the law
|
| I'm surprised that this is your framing, I don't think I
| would hesitate to offer a willing tenant or otherwise good
| employee a job because of their legal status. Mostly just on
| principle, it's not my job to be an arm of the state and I
| resent being deputized. They're physically here in my town,
| better they have somewhere to live and a means of supporting
| themselves rather than being homeless. If the state wants to
| find and deport them they can do it themselves on their own
| time.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| You have rushed into commenting without carefully reading
| what I wrote or knowing the context.
|
| In the UK, by law employers must check that the people they
| hire have a legal "right to work", i.e. are citizens or
| foreigners with the relevant visa. In England, landlords
| must check that prospective tenants have a legal "right to
| rent", i.e. are lawful residents. Penalties are hefty fines
| and up to jail.
|
| Hence "flunking the law".
| danaris wrote:
| The really rough part is that while the Democratic Party in the
| US is a weak slightly-left-of-center party, the Labour Party in
| the UK is basically a right-of-center party with decreasing
| amounts of daylight between them and the Tories.
|
| In particular, there is no major political party in the UK that
| supports trans rights, which is devastating to that community
| there.
|
| (On the plus side, so far as I can tell, with the Reform party
| to absorb the true fascists, there are fewer of them in the two
| major parties in the UK. ...With the downside being that Reform
| is doing distressingly well these days.)
| AJRF wrote:
| It's becoming increasingly confusing to me who any of the
| parties actually represent.
|
| The more left leaning people I know are foaming at the mouth
| over how Labour have operated since being elected, all
| moderates (outside London) I know tend to lean Conservative
| (though that party seems to be AWOL since the election) and
| the only party I hear that is gaining any popularity is
| Reform, and they are doing so at an alarming pace.
|
| 4 years is a long time, but it seems inevitable its a two
| horse race between Reform (given polls I have to presume not
| everyone who votes for them is a racist twit) and Labour, and
| Labour seem hell bent on alienating any one who isn't centre-
| right, and they have to contend with Reform for those votes.
| Maybe it's politicking to a degree I don't understand, but it
| seems like a very odd strategy.
|
| For those outside the UK look at this chart to see how fast
| Reform are rising:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_U.
| ..
| mhh__ wrote:
| There are (almost) no fascists in reform. You think the
| fascists will join a party whose second in command is
| "Muhammad Ziauddin Yusuf"? They're all in Homeland or other
| serious nationalist parties if at all.
|
| Reform are basically a joke amongst the "real" right (by
| which I don't mean neo-nazis but anyone with any actual
| beliefs)
| Symbiote wrote:
| The Liberal Democrats seem (from a quick read of just this
| article) to have thrown out a proposal to water down an
| existing trans rights policy.
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy0vvle9w7zo
| wastle wrote:
| Yes and gave a prestigious award, that was intended to
| honour women, to a man who calls himself a woman:
| https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/09/28/the-lib-dems-
| pratfa...
| wastle wrote:
| > _In particular, there is no major political party in the UK
| that supports trans rights, which is devastating to that
| community there._
|
| I believe this is incorrect. No party has said they have any
| intention of removing "gender reassignment" as a protected
| characteristic from the Equality Act. This law provides
| protection and offers legal recourse from being discriminated
| against by employers, service providers, and so on. Which, to
| cover those individuals with this characteristic, is the most
| reasonable consensus interpretation of "trans rights".
| arp242 wrote:
| I mean, that's kind of how the political system works in both
| the UK and US, and is not exactly a new thing. Often the "real"
| opposition are the backbenchers of your own party, rather than
| the opposition party.
| dmazin wrote:
| The thing that frustrates me the most about digital ID cards is
| not themselves on merit but rather modern Labour's political
| abilities.
|
| Like, the UK economy is stagnant, there is a cost-of-living
| crisis, and Labour needs to present the public with an
| alternative to Farage. And the answer is... digital ID cards?
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| Completely agree. I'm not too bothered Digital ID cards, I was
| mildly annoyed by the idea of actual ID cards (manly the cost)
| but as a free digital app, I don't have many objections. I've
| seen it from colleagues in Denmark. If they manage to build in
| some zero knowledge proof of age I might even support it.
|
| But how this is supposed to stop immigration, illegal or
| otherwise, is beyond me.
| bossyTeacher wrote:
| I think about 90% of immigration to UK is legal so it won't.
| Seems like a huge expense when money is really tight
| crimsoneer wrote:
| If you want to improve the capacity of the state to deliver
| services and improve the lives of citizens, being able to
| easily tell who is who across a range of government departments
| is a pretty good place to start.
| arp242 wrote:
| Starmer seems to be under the impression that Labour needs to
| focus on immigration to stave of Reform. This is a mistake
| because most people don't _really_ care about immigration as
| such, they care about cost of living, health care, and basic
| things like that. Research and polling in many different
| countries over many different years have shown this again and
| again and again. People like Farage like to present "one easy
| answer to all problems politicians don't want you to know!"
| First: EU, now: immigration, next: gingers?
|
| Focusing so strongly on immigration and related issues only
| strengthens Farage. It does nothing to convince the die-hard
| Reform people and alienates your own voters. We're already
| seeing Labour split to a new party (well, assuming it doesn't
| implode in classic left-wing infighting). It's lose-lose.
|
| Labour won 2/3rd of MPs with just 1/3rd of the vote, the
| biggest gap between MPs and vote share in modern history by
| quite a margin. In many ways they "lost" last year's election
| because that's a very underwhelming result after running
| against a deeply unpopular government that's been in government
| for almost 15 years. They've been on a thin ice since day one.
|
| All of this is such an obvious mistake that I truly don't
| understand what Starmer is even thinking.
| _trampeltier wrote:
| Just today Switzerland said YES to E-ID
|
| https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/votes/202509...
| flowerthoughts wrote:
| 50.39% yes. Wow, that's the closest I've seen here.
| nickslaughter02 wrote:
| Prediction:
|
| > _The Government has no plans to stop the introduction of
| Digital ID cards, and is working closely with companies to
| implement it as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK
| users to benefit from its protections._
|
| https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903
| mhotchen wrote:
| It almost feels predestined for this to not solve the problems at
| hand, overrun on costs and timelines (furthering the first
| point), in no way streamline existing processes or cut costs,
| leave behind parts of society, and present security
| vulnerabilities that can be capitalised on through either social
| engineering or malware (also furthering the first point, only now
| citizens will be accused of tax fraud)
|
| I hate to be pessimistic and there are elements of the idea I
| like, but when reflecting on the issues at hand this feels like
| popping the toaster because you smell burnt toast, but the rest
| of the house is on fire
| IMSAI8080 wrote:
| Indeed. It'll be a gravy train for one of the usual big
| consulting companies. Billions of much needed cash will be
| wasted and nothing of any value will be achieved.
|
| This ID system is touted as somehow stopping illegal boat
| crossings (the current political hot topic in the UK) because
| it will apparently somehow stop illegal work. This is obvious
| nonsense. Employers are already supposed to do ID checks and
| face heavy fines for employing illegal workers. Illegal
| employers obviously don't bother with such checks and pay cash
| in hand. They will continue not to bother doing any such
| checks, with or without ID cards.
|
| A great deal of illegal work is actually caused by arm's-length
| employers such as food delivery apps and other similar
| platforms. These companies already do fairly robust ID checks.
| What happens though is people rent out their accounts (often
| for surprisingly small amounts of money) with the ID check
| already passed to illegals who actually do the work. The
| problem is nothing to do with ID checks, it's the fact that the
| employer never sees the employee in person and doesn't verify
| on a day-to-day basis who is actually completing the work.
| theginger wrote:
| This appears to be backfiring spectacularly. It is a shame in
| many ways because a decent digital ID system would be very
| beneficial. The problem is the approach is completely wrong.
| There are already 10+ competing ID system which are now largely
| digital. A solution on how to bring all that together done well
| could make things significantly more secure by reducing the
| attack surface and make it much more reliable.
|
| Instead it looks like they are going for 1 more competing system,
| the implementation of which will be steered by politics and
| ideology rather than technology and technical requirements.
| panstromek wrote:
| I don't understand the problem. How is this different from all
| other identifiers, physical or digital, that most goverments
| already have?
| dazc wrote:
| The likelihood that it will become tied to your bank account,
| credit file, etc in a way which isn't currently possible with
| physical forms of id such as passports and driving licences.
| hchdifnfbgbf wrote:
| How isn't that currently possible? In America, your bank is
| already required to keep a semi-permanent record of your
| state issued identification for anti-money
| laundering/terrorism financing reasons.
|
| I can see concerns about it becoming a widely used form of
| SSO, potentially even mandated, and that destroying privacy.
| However, banks and credit are cases where you already do not
| have that privacy, so they don't seem like a very compelling
| example to point to.
| uyzstvqs wrote:
| We need to clearly define some stuff around Digital ID, since
| people seem to be using the term for distinctly different things.
|
| There's (1) eGovernment platforms, where you can handle
| government-related business online using a login. There's (2)
| Digital ID cards, where you can use your phone in place of a
| physical ID or drivers license in real life. And then there's (3)
| full EU-proposed-style Digital ID, where government wants to act
| as a SSO provider for private online services, like social media.
|
| Yet someone can be rightfully criticizing (3), as it would pose a
| _major_ risk to online privacy, and someone else barges in with
| "here in [place] we have a great eGovernment platform which is
| very useful for filing your taxes online, I don't see why you'd
| oppose that". Not specifically in this thread, it's been
| noticeable over almost all Digital ID-related discussions in the
| past. Please be considerate of that.
|
| This appears to be about (2), with the catch of it being made
| mandatory for anyone who wants to be employed in the UK.
| dazc wrote:
| "This appears to be about (2), with the catch of it being made
| mandatory for anyone who wants to be employed in the UK."
|
| For people who are already working illegally, or plan to, it
| would change nothing, as they could dodge any checks by sub-
| contracting through someone who seems to be legally employed.
|
| The government cannot be so daft as to ignore how much illegal
| work happens this way, so there has to be some larger scheme at
| play here.
| suyash wrote:
| There are already systems to check immigration status "Right to
| Work" in the UK that employer can use to check any immigratants
| current status.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| Is there a technological way to make an ID that's anonymous and
| irrevocable (since arguably people should never lose
| citizenship)? Because digital, national ID has major benefits
| (prevents fraud, reduces paperwork), but yeah, those are IMO
| larger drawbacks.
| vitorgrs wrote:
| As a Brazilian, it's pretty weird when I see that countries like
| UK or the U.S don't have national IDs.
|
| Here that would be seen as a completely insane.
| t43562 wrote:
| I think it would be nice not to have to prove identity and
| address repeatedly with lots of paper utility bills. As for abuse
| by authority: well don't elect a populist party then. If you do
| it won't matter what defenses you think you have.
| 4ndrewl wrote:
| It's difficult to understand how one of the least popular
| governments of recent times are going in hard on one of the least
| popular policies (in the UK) in recent times.
| KoolKat23 wrote:
| Distraction. You're debating the policy now, not the people.
| puppycodes wrote:
| Oh hell yes
|
| two million signatures lets gooooo.
|
| Finally some inspiring movement on this front.
| sega_sai wrote:
| To me it's a question of benefits vs drawbacks. In my
| understanding ID cards are beneficial for 1) Running government
| services 2) Fraud prevention 3) Some immigration control (as at
| least some reason why people try to migrate to UK is lax document
| checks) Some people argue that it's somehow becomes
| authoritarian, when you have an ID card. I personally don't buy
| that as most of us have already passports, NI numbers etc, so all
| the security cervices if need be have access to that. Obviously
| if people start to engage with hypotheticals, that these cards
| will be used to check whether you can access internet etc, I
| agree, that would be dangerous, but that is not being proposed.
| Also the argument that implementing it will take a lot of money
| and will never be done is not a convincing one, as in that case
| one should not really try to do anything in this country.
| jen729w wrote:
| I don't trust the UK government either. But I'm both British and
| Australian and I see the need for a centralised identity service.
|
| Because the alternative is that we provide our passport to every
| online service that 'needs' to verify our identity. Then - lo,
| would you believe it! - they get hacked, and now all of our data
| is in the wild _again_.
|
| I'd much rather the government, who _already know everything
| about me_ because may I remind you _they issued the documents_ ,
| had some way of that company querying my 'verified identity'.
| They might do it by me providing, say, an ID number string which
| is looked up. That's all they get: my ID number. In return, they
| get confirmation that I am who I say I am.
|
| Oh by the way I already have at least 2 of these ID numbers as an
| Australian citizen. My aforementioned passport, and my driver
| licence. Both of which I know I should keep 'private', lol, but
| if I want to interact with the world in any meaningful way the
| reality is that I spray these digits - along with my date of
| birth and address and whatever else they ask for - all over the
| goddamned place.
|
| But sure, centralised identity is bad.
| 0xy wrote:
| Your mistake is assuming good faith on behalf of the government
| who arrests thousands of people for social media posts. Beyond
| faith, they are incredibly incompetent and this data will be
| stolen.
| zbentley wrote:
| You miss GP's point. They're not assuming good faith, they're
| pointing out that the government _already knows identity
| credentials_ and can, encrypted or not, quite easily
| correlate digital activity with those credentials.
|
| The question isn't whether the government can/will identify
| and track you. They do, in good faith or bad. This is
| unfortunate and attempts to allow them to _decrypt_ or
| _acquire_ additional data about citizens' activities (like
| chat control) should be opposed, but identity /activity
| tracking is omnipresent and irreversible.
|
| The question is whether identity credentials should be
| available which reduce the risk of _additonal_ credential
| theft or bad-faith action (e.g. by other entities stealing
| non-secure-for-digital-use credentials like passports).
| wkat4242 wrote:
| > Because the alternative is that we provide our passport to
| every online service that 'needs' to verify our identity.
|
| I really really really don't want to 'verify my identity'
| everywhere. Why the F is that normalised these days?? If I buy
| something online my payment and delivery address is all they
| should need. And all they've had to have for the last 30 years
|
| > I'd much rather the government, who _already know everything
| about me_ because may I remind you _they issued the documents_
| , had some way of that company querying my 'verified identity'.
|
| Um yeah but right now they don't know what you do with your
| life all the time. Anna have absolutely no business to.
| ACCount37 wrote:
| Given the ongoing "age verification" fiasco, I'd be quite
| wary of giving UK government any more digital powers. They
| don't seem to be any good at using what they have.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-09-28 23:00 UTC)