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…
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.
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 :)
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.
>I don’t believe I have personally witnessed any other advanced economy that so ardently marches towards authoritarianism.
The UK is largely in conversation with Australia and Canada on this stuff. Australia test benched a lot of the laws the UK later adopted, even cribbing the terminology directly.
Not surprisingly we have our own Digital ID in formation, and we have an Internet ID system in the pipeline mirroring the one in the UK.
I think the take away should be that you cant really engineer a system where theres a single country with "Freedom", as Freedom is considered relative to other countries. A declining tide drops all boats.
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.
To expand a bit on Scandinavia, let me describe my 5 different but equal valid identification systems that I personally own that is valid to use in order to identify myself towards the government, two (mostly) digital and three physical with digital parts.
I got one passport with bio metric data and chips in it. One national ID card with bio metric data and chip in it. One driving license card without bio metric data and I don't know if there is a chip or not inside.
Then I got two digital eid systems, bank id and freya. The bank id is initially created by using a physical device that the bank provides, and the other one is created with a smart phone to scan the passport in combination with face recognition.
I can't really say if the multiple digital eid systems give the government an increase in authority, through its hard to say. Mostly it just messy to carry so many different identification systems that basically do the same thing. The current discussion that I see in Sweden mostly focus on turning the physical cards into digital.
Swedish ID system seems pretty great. Never had any of my family there complain about it, and it just seems to make a lot of life easier.
The issue I see with the UK's plan is it that so far everything the government is talking about is how it will stop illegal working, and that just seems like a reaction to reform's recent rise in polls. That by itself seems like a waste, because people working cash in hand surely won't be bothered by this new requirement.
I think it should go further so it actually becomes useful. Things like having people's benefit status accessible at pharmacies to prevent people simply saying "I don't pay for my prescription" (still blows my mind this is a thing).
What has the UK done to make you think it is becoming one of the most authoritarian advanced economies?
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.
> I don’t believe I have personally witnessed any other advanced economy that so ardently marches towards authoritarianism.
Are you familiar with what is happening in the US? Personally a digital ID is a far cry from troops on the ground in major cities and government backed militias detaining people without probable cause.
>I don’t believe I have personally witnessed any other advanced economy that so ardently marches towards authoritarianism.
Have you ever been to Asia or South America or really the rest of the world? A digital ID is a pretty mundane. If you're complaining about "authoritarianism", if the government really wants to get you they will get you. Place more faith or care in the plurality of your political systems instead.
> 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.
> 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.
You can safely replace the UK with any other government and it will stand. Likely the UK one just desperately trying to push dividing issues in order to distract from what really matters to the UK citizens.
Or they are just inherently stupid and just do what they are told. Its unfortunate what the UK governance degenerated into.
I'd love to know how this "march towards authoritarianism" actually manifests in the real world. Not just in the head space of podcast grifters and privacy nuts.
I've lived in the UK my whole life. Multiple other countries have liberated themselves and then returned to authoritarian governments within my lifetime.
Strangely this hasn't happened in the UK, plenty of people trying to wish it into existence though.
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.
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.
What service needs a solution to verify identity that doesn't already exist?
Banks do KYC now. Employers already need a National Insurance number to employ someone. Benefits get paid to a named payee. Emergency healthcare needs no insurance and waiting lists come via a GP who indeed knows me.
What service needs a further centralised deposit of power over identity?
> 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.)
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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"
What is actually going on with that? It feels like over the last 2 years the British police have decided to see what it's like being the stasi. Most of the msm are faithfully avoiding mentioning how authoritarian the police have become. The odd thing is they are not even necessarily propping up a political regime, although again it feels like they are getting some of their instructions directly from kier starmers mind, but they are arresting people for being mean on twitter. It's really odd and no matter what side of the political divide you are on you should be disturbed.
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.
Utility bills as verification have always been weird to me. How is that actual proof?
I can't see how that doesn't cut off more of the populace than having a national ID would. Assuming it's an issue as mentioned a few times here in comments.
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.
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.
Japan has a digital national ID ("MyNumber" is the name). There was a lot of pushback before it passed but it did pass. It is now the main ID that is used for national health insurance and other government services. The rollout has been rocky with bugs and whatnot, but in the past 2 years or so there's been no drama. The ID is now supported in iOS and is coming to Android soon too, so one can have their ID on their phone instead of carrying around a physical card.
Cyber risks notwithstanding (they concern me greatly), I still think the Gov is better placed than Private sector to guarantee citizens privacy and security (at that level). Why? The Gov is better placed to be the ultimate non-profit org: can fund, can legislate, can draw expertise, is non-profit etc.
Treat the digital ID as critical national infrastructure, or else it'll fail massively.
Not surprising the country is heading down this direction. Once worked at a school briefly, everything is heavily monitored and low trust. If you are new you have to show a certificate showing you have nothing on your record and ID such as a passport. Then you need a badge that you need to wear at all times or else have a staff member with you at all times. You are never allowed to use your phone unless in staff room. You must sign in every time you enter the building and sign out when you leave. Anything can be said about you and land you in HR. Everyone is like a walking CCTV.
This is the future for broader society as the government has no trust in its citizens and believes the only solution is to monitor and control. The above will just be extrapolated where it can.
Give the government your name, postal address, email address and citizenship information to store on a government database in order to protest against the government having your name, postal address, email address and citizenship information to store on a government database.
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.
[+] [-] dijit|5 months ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] skeletal88|5 months ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] raesene9|5 months ago|reply
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 :)
[+] [-] dalke|5 months ago|reply
So far my BankID boycott is over a year old, and my resolve grows as I read more of the news.
[+] [-] protocolture|5 months ago|reply
The UK is largely in conversation with Australia and Canada on this stuff. Australia test benched a lot of the laws the UK later adopted, even cribbing the terminology directly.
Not surprisingly we have our own Digital ID in formation, and we have an Internet ID system in the pipeline mirroring the one in the UK.
I think the take away should be that you cant really engineer a system where theres a single country with "Freedom", as Freedom is considered relative to other countries. A declining tide drops all boats.
[+] [-] Etheryte|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] belorn|5 months ago|reply
I got one passport with bio metric data and chips in it. One national ID card with bio metric data and chip in it. One driving license card without bio metric data and I don't know if there is a chip or not inside.
Then I got two digital eid systems, bank id and freya. The bank id is initially created by using a physical device that the bank provides, and the other one is created with a smart phone to scan the passport in combination with face recognition.
I can't really say if the multiple digital eid systems give the government an increase in authority, through its hard to say. Mostly it just messy to carry so many different identification systems that basically do the same thing. The current discussion that I see in Sweden mostly focus on turning the physical cards into digital.
[+] [-] pkaodev|5 months ago|reply
The issue I see with the UK's plan is it that so far everything the government is talking about is how it will stop illegal working, and that just seems like a reaction to reform's recent rise in polls. That by itself seems like a waste, because people working cash in hand surely won't be bothered by this new requirement.
I think it should go further so it actually becomes useful. Things like having people's benefit status accessible at pharmacies to prevent people simply saying "I don't pay for my prescription" (still blows my mind this is a thing).
What has the UK done to make you think it is becoming one of the most authoritarian advanced economies?
[+] [-] surfingdino|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] dyauspitr|5 months ago|reply
Are you familiar with what is happening in the US? Personally a digital ID is a far cry from troops on the ground in major cities and government backed militias detaining people without probable cause.
[+] [-] corimaith|5 months ago|reply
Have you ever been to Asia or South America or really the rest of the world? A digital ID is a pretty mundane. If you're complaining about "authoritarianism", if the government really wants to get you they will get you. Place more faith or care in the plurality of your political systems instead.
[+] [-] scrlk|5 months ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jesterson|5 months ago|reply
You can safely replace the UK with any other government and it will stand. Likely the UK one just desperately trying to push dividing issues in order to distract from what really matters to the UK citizens.
Or they are just inherently stupid and just do what they are told. Its unfortunate what the UK governance degenerated into.
[+] [-] mothballed|5 months ago|reply
Is there any chance England might too?
[+] [-] floam|5 months ago|reply
I’m honestly curious how the two are seen from the outside.
[+] [-] phatfish|5 months ago|reply
I've lived in the UK my whole life. Multiple other countries have liberated themselves and then returned to authoritarian governments within my lifetime.
Strangely this hasn't happened in the UK, plenty of people trying to wish it into existence though.
[+] [-] basisword|5 months ago|reply
Come on. You really think the UK has moved further towards authoritarianism in recent years than the US?
[+] [-] jen729w|5 months ago|reply
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|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway808081|5 months ago|reply
What service needs a solution to verify identity that doesn't already exist?
Banks do KYC now. Employers already need a National Insurance number to employ someone. Benefits get paid to a named payee. Emergency healthcare needs no insurance and waiting lists come via a GP who indeed knows me.
What service needs a further centralised deposit of power over identity?
[+] [-] wkat4242|5 months ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] uyzstvqs|5 months ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] dmazin|5 months ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] _trampeltier|5 months ago|reply
https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/votes/202509...
[+] [-] AJRF|5 months ago|reply
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|5 months ago|reply
This is some very impressive politicking and exactly why many people don't trust the mainstream political parties.
[+] [-] mytailorisrich|5 months ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] arp242|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] danaris|5 months ago|reply
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.)
[+] [-] theginger|5 months ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] nickslaughter02|5 months ago|reply
> 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
[+] [-] whitehexagon|5 months ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] SilverElfin|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] mhh__|5 months ago|reply
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
[+] [-] raesene9|5 months ago|reply
Or indeed in one notable case the person who was arrested for a T-Shirt about "Plasticine action"
[+] [-] n4r9|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] userbinator|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] FridayoLeary|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] t43562|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] Avamander|5 months ago|reply
I can't see how that doesn't cut off more of the populace than having a national ID would. Assuming it's an issue as mentioned a few times here in comments.
[+] [-] panstromek|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] sega_sai|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] esbranson|5 months ago|reply
– Authenticate RPs: no over-asking
– Unobservability: keys on user devices
– Selective disclosure: minimal attributes
– Unlinkability: ZKP-based anonymous credentials
– Deniability: designated-verifier ZKPs
[1] https://media.ccc.de/v/38c3-eu-s-digital-identity-systems-re...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45359074
[+] [-] poszlem|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] gkanai|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] al_be_back|5 months ago|reply
Treat the digital ID as critical national infrastructure, or else it'll fail massively.
[+] [-] random9749832|5 months ago|reply
This is the future for broader society as the government has no trust in its citizens and believes the only solution is to monitor and control. The above will just be extrapolated where it can.
[+] [-] dotBen|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] 4ndrewl|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] KoolKat23|5 months ago|reply