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.
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'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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
But fortunately "Use of the e-ID is voluntary..." in their case. Whereas in the UK it's being pushed as a (for all intents and purposes) mandatory thing.
> 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.
> We will introduce a digital ID within this Parliament to help tackle illegal migration, make accessing government services easier, and enable wider efficiencies. We will consult on details soon.
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
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.
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 suspicion is that the government will introduce it as (2) but it will be extended to replace physical ID, especially as the government has discussed making driving licences digital. On top of that once introduced it is likely that you will need to provide ID for more things, possibly including (3).
If (2) being mandatory means that you need an Android or iPhone in order to work or do anything you need an ID for, then I refer to my basic stance whenever this kind of crap comes up:
Tying citizen's rights to acceptance of Alphabet or Apple's Terms of Service ought to be a crime against humanity. It would also be a bad idea for a sovereign state to give foreign corporations so much power.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Digital IDs are a solution. What are the clear problems statements? How can you show that Digital ID solves them? What problems do they also introduce?
Kier Starmer seems to have no idea how he's coming across. Everything he does just makes him look more authoritarian. He's doing this right after passing that "online safety" bill. It's remarkable that the only time he got his act together was in sending anti government rioters to prison in record time. Which only goes to show what he can do when he wants. The palestine action thing is another one. They embarrassed him so now they are being arrested in their hundreds. It's really not a great look for him at all. But he seems blithley unaware of this. I imagine he's confused because his entire social group of enlightened progressive elites tell him he's amazing and he doesn't understand what the plebian class are complaining about.
He's the ultimate product of a dysfunctional civil service; what else could be expected other than dis-empowering people, ignoring democracy, and increasing bureaucratic power?
50 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 78.9 ms ] threadAs 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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/votes/202509...
> 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
> We will introduce a digital ID within this Parliament to help tackle illegal migration, make accessing government services easier, and enable wider efficiencies. We will consult on details soon.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45461391
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
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.
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.
Tying citizen's rights to acceptance of Alphabet or Apple's Terms of Service ought to be a crime against humanity. It would also be a bad idea for a sovereign state to give foreign corporations so much power.
Here that would be seen as a completely insane.
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.
two million signatures lets gooooo.
Finally some inspiring movement on this front.
What’s the point of democracy if the people say no and the government does it anyway?
Thats what I get for having a moment of hope.
Lesson learned lol.
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.