New UK Digital ID for all suggested

[rjfp1962]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64729442

[Hereward]

I am always a little baffled by the Digital ID thing.

I have a passport and a Driving Licence. I am registered with the council and have accounts with umpteen different organisations who have my personal details.

Why should I be concerned about this? Happy to be educated and see another point of view.

[Snoggledog]

I've never really understood what all the fuss is about with identity cards. Almost every country in the world has them apart from the UK (and a handful of others)

[sugerbear]

Snoggledog said:

I've never really understood what all the fuss is about with identity cards. Almost every country in the world has them apart from the UK (and a handful of others)

So do we, they are called Passports and Driving licences.

[NDA]

I like the idea of everyone having an ID. But I would be anxious about the security of a single ID (with everything on it) - i.e. passport, driving licence, NHS etc. Just worried for security, nothing else.

[sim72]

Because, sheeple, it would enable us all to be corralled in the 15 minUTe CiTies ...

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/15-minute-cities-c...

[Pitre]

I remember all the fuss around ID cards about twenty years ago. Never understood why anyone rational would find it a problem.

[sugerbear]

Pitre said:

I remember all the fuss around ID cards about twenty years ago. Never understood why anyone rational would find it a problem.

Because most people already have a form of id, so massive waste of money. That's why rational people don't like it.

[ARHarh]

But surely everyone over 16 has an NI number, which these days is linked to a lot of stuff. Mostly via the government gateway.

It has to only be people trying to hide for some reason who would even bother about an ID card. I don't care, it wont make any difference to me, as long as they don't charge me for one. If they start charging for an ID card, that would not be right.

[sim72]

Seriously, of course, it won't happen under the current Government because it would bugger up their attempt to gerrymander the election in their favour through their ID for voting requirements.

[Evanivitch]

Snoggledog said:

I've never really understood what all the fuss is about with identity cards. Almost every country in the world has them apart from the UK (and a handful of others)

Because it's usually used as an exaggerated populist response to an issue that is exaggerated for political gain (immigration, voter fraud, benefits fraud, NHS tourists).

[J210]

I see no issue with something suggested by Blair. its not like he has ties to dodgy organisations and will financially benefit from this.....



Its not like it can be used to access essential services...




But this just looks like a conspiracy from one of them dodgy websites or tin foil hatters. Not some sort of agenda


https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/01/davos-agend...

Edited by J210 on Wednesday 22 February 10:48

[2xChevrons]

Hereward said:

I am always a little baffled by the Digital ID thing.

I have a passport and a Driving Licence. I am registered with the council and have accounts with umpteen different organisations who have my personal details.

Why should I be concerned about this? Happy to be educated and see another point of view.

Start at "Tony Blair thinks this is a good idea and keeps making 'rare public statements' to push them" and work from there...

The objections/concerns range from the "the WEF and the WWF are going to share your information with George Soros, track your shopping purchases and force you to have biometric chips put into your teeth" nuttery to some more reasonable ones. Such as the difference between having the council know your address and where your kids go to school, but they don't know when your road tax is due or whether you have a motorbike license. That's the DVLA purview, and they don't know (and don't need to know) about whether you've requested a new recycling bin. Information is 'siloed' at the moment and government departments generally have to cross-request and share data with specific actions and purposes. Which is good for data protection and stopping the development of a government panopticon, but also leads to delays, errors, duplication and bureaucracy that a single national ID could alleviate.

As I've said before in threads on this matter, I am pretty relaxed (even quietly positive) about National ID in principle. It is the norm in most countries, and plenty of our European neighbours have them and have avoided becoming totalitarian snoop-states. Many of them actually have much stronger protections against government overreach, greater constitutional civil liberties and a more developed social sense of personal freedom than we do.

But you have to look at two things: 1) Who is suggesting it 2) What benefits are they saying will result from it. I've already mentioned the 1) It's never people with a track record of scepticism towards state power and a background belief in personal liberty (be it the negative or the positive sort) that are suggesting Digital IDs in the modern era. It's always politicians who when in power either implemented or supported rafts of authoritarian, death-by-a-thousand cuts increases in arbitrary powers, surveillance and non-accountable state activities.

The 2): They never lead with the benefits that Digital ID would bring to ordinary people. It's never about having a single, official source of ID with which you can easily access all government services, from picking up a parcel at the Royal Mail office to voting in local council consultations. It's never about how, theoretically, changing GPs could be as simple as the receptionist requesting your e-notes and you swiping your ID to confirm the change. It's never suggested that an ID, officially tied to your address, could be used to give local residents discounts on municipal transport or a certain number of free meals in the cafe at your local country park. They don't even lead with the 'negative but loads of people will take it as a positive' things like cutting down on benefit fraud, tracking residency requirements or ensuring you have the right to access the NHS.

It's always about how it would help the government/state keep track of you, enforce rules and requirements, exclude non-ID havers from things, identify troublemakers etc. It's always stick, not carrot.

It's a bit like the fervour being whipped up about '15 Minute Cities'. Now, this is nearly all right-wing nut-job conspiracy lunacy imported straight from America (you can tell because Britain already has loads of '15 Minute Cities', unlike swathes of America where if you don't have a car and can't travel an hour or so across your dystopian suburban sprawl to the Walmart then you don't eat) but the pushback plays on a very reasonable concern: That for at least the past 50 years, if not the past 150 years, the British establishment has proven time and time again that it cannot, and will not, actively encourage desirable behaviour, but only punish what it deems undesirable. Always stick, no carrot. For Digital IDs, it will mean that the state gets all the benefits of being able to track your information and activities while we get none of the benefits (and get fined if we don't log in to do our mandatory annual Citizens Record update check) and for the 15 Minute Cities it means that instead of lower public transport fares, adding more stops to bus routes, new cycle infrastructure, a national plan to reintroduce tram systems to towns and cities and incentives and protections to promote small local businesses instead of large corporate chains on out-of-town sites, we'll just get charged more to drive anywhere.

It's deeply cynical and suspicious, but not without reason.

Edited by 2xChevrons on Wednesday 22 February 10:52

[grumbledoak]

Blair again?

Has he got a dossier full of persuasive arguments why this is a great idea?

[Halmyre]

rjfp1962 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64729442

Other countries have them! It's technology!

Er, what are the real benefits, apart from filling the boots of Capita or suchlike?

[Terminator X]

So long as there is a choice no problem. As soon as it becomes a "legal requirement" then a whole different ball game. I'd never sign up for it as is my personal choice, other opinions may vary.

TX.

[moffspeed]

Like it or not it seems to be inevitable if you travel within the EU.

The EU Entry & Exit system (EES) is planned to be introduced by the end of this year. Biometric scanning of all non EU residents when they enter an EU country. No more passport stamping - you just step into a kiosk and undergo a facial scan and finger printing.

I had the process done here in Portugal for temporary residency. Multiple mug shots before one that suitably captured my fine features. Then had to hold a black sheet over my white T shirt to prevent reflections. Several attempts at fingerprinting before an accurate scan was achieved.

Imagine that at Malaga airport mid-summer with just one A321 load of passengers….

[anonymous-user]

I can hear popping noises.

Ah. That’ll be the sound of heads exploding.

[Rivenink]

2xChevrons said:

Hereward said:

I am always a little baffled by the Digital ID thing.

I have a passport and a Driving Licence. I am registered with the council and have accounts with umpteen different organisations who have my personal details.

Why should I be concerned about this? Happy to be educated and see another point of view.

Start at "Tony Blair thinks this is a good idea and keeps making 'rare public statements' to push them" and work from there...

The objections/concerns range from the "the WEF and the WWF are going to share your information with George Soros, track your shopping purchases and force you to have biometric chips put into your teeth" nuttery to some more reasonable ones. Such as the difference between having the council know your address and where your kids go to school, but they don't know when your road tax is due or whether you have a motorbike license. That's the DVLA purview, and they don't know (and don't need to know) about whether you've requested a new recycling bin. Information is 'siloed' at the moment and government departments generally have to cross-request and share data with specific actions and purposes. Which is good for data protection and stopping the development of a government panopticon, but also leads to delays, errors, duplication and bureaucracy that a single national ID could alleviate.

As I've said before in threads on this matter, I am pretty relaxed (even quietly positive) about National ID in principle. It is the norm in most countries, and plenty of our European neighbours have them and have avoided becoming totalitarian snoop-states. Many of them actually have much stronger protections against government overreach, greater constitutional civil liberties and a more developed social sense of personal freedom than we do.

But you have to look at two things: 1) Who is suggesting it 2) What benefits are they saying will result from it. I've already mentioned the 1) It's never people with a track record of scepticism towards state power and a background belief in personal liberty (be it the negative or the positive sort) that are suggesting Digital IDs in the modern era. It's always politicians who when in power either implemented or supported rafts of authoritarian, death-by-a-thousand cuts increases in arbitrary powers, surveillance and non-accountable state activities.

The 2): They never lead with the benefits that Digital ID would bring to ordinary people. It's never about having a single, official source of ID with which you can easily access all government services, from picking up a parcel at the Royal Mail office to voting in local council consultations. It's never about how, theoretically, changing GPs could be as simple as the receptionist requesting your e-notes and you swiping your ID to confirm the change. It's never suggested that an ID, officially tied to your address, could be used to give local residents discounts on municipal transport or a certain number of free meals in the cafe at your local country park. They don't even lead with the 'negative but loads of people will take it as a positive' things like cutting down on benefit fraud, tracking residency requirements or ensuring you have the right to access the NHS.

It's always about how it would help the government/state keep track of you, enforce rules and requirements, exclude non-ID havers from things, identify troublemakers etc. It's always stick, not carrot.

It's a bit like the fervour being whipped up about '15 Minute Cities'. Now, this is nearly all right-wing nut-job conspiracy lunacy imported straight from America (you can tell because Britain already has loads of '15 Minute Cities', unlike swathes of America where if you don't have a car and can't travel an hour or so across your dystopian suburban sprawl to the Walmart then you don't eat) but the pushback plays on a very reasonable concern: That for at least the past 50 years, if not the past 150 years, the British establishment has proven time and time again that it cannot, and will not, actively encourage desirable behaviour, but only punish what it deems undesirable. Always stick, no carrot. For Digital IDs, it will mean that the state gets all the benefits of being able to track your information and activities while we get none of the benefits (and get fined if we don't log in to do our mandatory annual Citizens Record update check) and for the 15 Minute Cities it means that instead of lower public transport fares, adding more stops to bus routes, new cycle infrastructure, a national plan to reintroduce tram systems to towns and cities and incentives and protections to promote small local businesses instead of large corporate chains on out-of-town sites, we'll just get charged more to drive anywhere.

It's deeply cynical and suspicious, but not without reason.

Edited by 2xChevrons on Wednesday 22 February 10:52

My thoughts on it are conflicted.

It's also important to note that the UK is different from many other democratic countries we might look to for examples, in that the UK does not have a written constitution.

I can see the potential benefits. It could save the public sector £billions in reduced admin costs. It could improve the experience of people who need a Government service,for example the DWP being able to automatically verify with the NHS the entitlement of someone with a disability to have PIP payments, without that person needing to attend degrading interviews with letters from their doctor.

When Blair promised this years ago, I had significant privacy concerns. I still do. The problem is that integration of the internet into everything we do in life has made those concerns largely moot. Private companies have very significant data profiles about each of us, and Government agencies can easily demand access to those profiles.

While the complexity of data might present a barrier to quick invasion of our privacy by the Government, ever increasing computing power and AI is making that less and less of a barrier.

In short, I'm thinking it might be better to focus efforts not on preventing this, but on ensuring that it maximises benefits and protections for citizens.

[oyster]

ARHarh said:

But surely everyone over 16 has an NI number, which these days is linked to a lot of stuff. Mostly via the government gateway.

It has to only be people trying to hide for some reason who would even bother about an ID card. I don't care, it wont make any difference to me, as long as they don't charge me for one. If they start charging for an ID card, that would not be right.

Of course they’ll charge you. Either directly or via increased taxes.