Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Google and facebook already have a very comprehensive and accurate profile about you and your likes and interests. They sell this data - why does the government need an ID card if they can just go to facebook?
You are making up scenarios where if there was a will, it could be done with existing tech. The ID card will not change the polices of the government. The lack of an ID card didn't stop the age verification systems being implemented did they.
You are loosing any bit of credibility you may have had for genuine concerns about data. But the card wont stop the policy nor will it encourage that. Its just getting the same data points a diffrent way. The benefits and simplification to organisations who require id is staggering.
It should also reduce the number of employers taking on those who don't have a right to work in the uk (it wont stop it totally but it should have a dramatic impact).
The card isn't the issue its the policies of the government - having or not having the card wont change that.
You are reaching for scenarios and making predictions based on things that we are doing already or its feasible with current tech. The use of data is a legitimate thing to worry about esp when its going to the usa the lack of an ID card hasn't stopped the direction its been going.
Thats because, if you decide that all the other arguments are conspiracies, the only remaining explanation for why the government is doing this is because Tony Blair did it.
The government, when it frequently runs out of ideas, just mindlessly apes Tony Blair.
Tony Blair wanted ID cards and continues to propose them as the "solution" to any problem he can, so now Starmer wants ID cards.
This system will achieve nothing with regards to immigration, its just todays preferred reason that expansion of government control is essential. Just like terrorism was for Blair.
I wonder if you are anti vaxx - vaccines are not 100% effective therefore we don't take them for the extra protection it provides.
Wearing a seatbelt wasn't compulsory. Now its the law, its had a dramatic impact on crash survivability. Still people don't wear them so we shouldn't have made it law or would you have predicted it wouldn't work. No one would do it even though it was a law.
The government should be able to communicate exactly why ID cards are are a good idea, what they're for, and exactly what they're doing to assuage people's doubts about the way it might be used. They're not doing that and, because of that, here comes the conspiracists.
See also : The removal of Winter fuel allowance. A policy that had a perfectly good rationale - they just completely failed to explain it to the population and let others take over the narrative.
No doubt this government has been very poor with communication.
ID cards being a prime example. They should have led with national security and fighting illegal immigration.
I wonder if you are anti vaxx - vaccines are not 100% effective therefore we don't take them for the extra protection it provides.
Wearing a seatbelt wasn't compulsory. Now its the law, its had a dramatic impact on crash survivability. Still people don't wear them so we shouldn't have made it law or would you have predicted it wouldn't work. No one would do it even though it was a law.
No doubt this government has been very poor with communication.
ID cards being a prime example. They should have led with national security and fighting illegal immigration.
Leading with that would require that they have convincing arguments.
According to various news outlets, they couldn't even convince Yvette Cooper that this was a good idea, which is why she was removed from the Home Office just before this announcement. Starmer wants ID cards because he wants ID cards. Largely because Blair wanted them and he wants to be like Blair.
There are a number of laws the government can use to take action on anyone online. Mostly the organisations are more draconian as they don't want to upset the advertising.
You need to go have a cup of tea - you are becoming more and more hysterical. They could do that now if they wanted. Require all purchases to have a passport or driving licence. Scan it and link it to what ever fictional rule you are making up.
It has issued the ID and can't take it back.. what does this mean - I cant make sense of it.
What incentive does the government have to make up an id check compared to the random decisions by 3rd parties?
HMRC regularly mismatch people with data they are given as there is a good chance someone else meets most if not all the same information. the difference could be down to the ni number but the organisation collecting a debt and putting an attachment of earnings didn't ask or require it. so hmrc sometimes get it wrong. So this will fix a current issue with the bad we we deal with identity checks.
Do you seriously think it's got the capacity to manage on an individual level for roughly 70 million people whether they're allowed to go to the pub or not, particularly given that proving one's ID is not automatically required for that purpose, only if one looks under 25 in most cases (though I'm conscious some clubs do scan everyone's ID)?
I think I've had to show ID to go for a drink/purchase alcohol no more than maybe 10-20 times in my whole life. It helps being tall (I am a bit baby faced but the height always seemed to override that), but most people don't often go to nightclubs these days, indeed those are dying out. Pubs don't generally scan everyone's ID.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Leading with that would require that they have convincing arguments.
According to the Guardian, they couldn't even convince Yvette Cooper that this was a good idea, which is why she was removed from the Home Office just before this announcement. Starmer wants ID cards because he wants ID cards. Largely because Blair wanted them and he wants to be like Blair.
You are going further and further down a rabbit hole on a course you have already decided and know exactly what is going to happen. You have lost all critical thinking and I am not going to bother as the facts of the current systems, issues and data collection processes mean nothing as its all going to be the fault of an ID card. Despite it not existing yet. Have a good day
All of those require effort, likely involving a finite supply of very expensive and high profile personnel.
With the system an algorithm would be able to take coercive action at absolutely zero cost, without even bothering to inform anyone in the government about that specific action.
You need to go have a cup of tea - you are becoming more and more hysterical. They could do that now if they wanted. Require all purchases to have a passport or driving licence. Scan it and link it to what ever fictional rule you are making up.
It has issued the ID and can't take it back.. what does this mean - I cant make sense of it.
Well unless it sends people around to find the person and seize their ID, it can't stop the people using it for the rest of its validity to go to the pub, buy alchohol etc.
Sending people to seize ID is going to be very expensive and the state apparatus is woefully inadequate to the task of doing it to any meaningful number of people.
With this system though, the ID card can be swept away in an instant.
I know people are going to claim that this is conspiratorial, but we saw exactly the same thing with smart meters.
I was told, on these very pages, by people that the idea that people would use the cut off switches in smart meters to cut more people off was delusional, since they could totally cut people off anyway.
And then a year or so later we had a scandal with energy companies increasing the number of disconnections (or defacto disconnections) by orders of magnitude, since now they could put thousands of cut off notices through the court and implement them that same afternoon at the touch of a button.
Once you radically increase the ease of some action being taken, it will be used far more.
Do you seriously think it's got the capacity to manage on an individual level for roughly 70 million people whether they're allowed to go to the pub or not, particularly given that proving one's ID is not automatically required for that purpose, only if one looks under 25 in most cases (though I'm conscious some clubs do scan everyone's ID)?
I think I've had to show ID to go for a drink/purchase alcohol no more than maybe 10-20 times in my whole life. It helps being tall (I am a bit baby faced but the height always seemed to override that), but most people don't often go to nightclubs these days, indeed those are dying out. Pubs don't generally scan everyone's ID.
I'd expect that once everyone is required to have a machine readable, digital ID, on their smartphone or otherwise, liability lawyers will rapidly start switching to universal checks.
As noted, increasing numbers of venues check everyone for entry, even beyond clubs.
I'm 35 and balding, and I get ID'd in Manchester not irregularly as it is and I've not been in a nightclub since about 2017.
I know people are going to claim that this is conspiratorial, but we saw exactly the same thing with smart meters.
I was told, on these very pages, by people that the idea that people would use the locking switches in smart meters to cut people off was delusional, since they could totally cut people off anyway.
And then a year or so later we had a scandal with energy companies increasing the number of disconnections by orders of magnitude, since now they could put thousands of cut off notices through the court and implement them that same afternoon at the touch of a button.
You have a problem with people having their electricity cut off if they fail, over an extended period, to either pay their bills or set up an appropriate payment plan or prepayment setup? I don't. It seems a reasonable thing to do to me. I don't want my electricity bills paying for those who simply can't be bothered to pay. It's no different to the fact that I want people who refuse to pay their train fare removed from the train.
Exceptions can be and are made for people who have registered that they have a critical medical need for electricity, e.g. to refrigerate medication.
I have a smart meter, I like it because it means I get accurate bills without having to do anything. I don't see any problem with that at all. The rest is either people who aren't going to pay their bills (who indeed should be cut off or forced onto prepayment meters*) or conspirababble.
* I don't agree with prepayment meters costing more per unit than post-payment, though, and I'd like to see legislation to make both the same price, aside from to take in the standing charge if they don't have one.
And then a year or so later we had a scandal with energy companies increasing the number of disconnections by orders of magnitude, since now they could put thousands of cut off notices through the court and implement them that same afternoon at the touch of a button.
Again, we find an erroneous conclusion! The problem here was not smart meters, but rather, energy companies abusing their powers in court. See also - the Post Office prosecuting postmasters (Horizon) and on this very forum the many discussions about Train Operating Companies misusing their powers and the resulting legal problems.
You've made technology the boogeyman, both with Smart Meters and ID Cards, and the truth is more complicated - and more mundane.
You have a problem with people having their electricity cut off if they fail, over an extended period, to either pay their bills or set up an appropriate payment plan or prepayment setup? I don't. It seems a reasonable thing to do to me. I don't want my electricity bills paying for those who simply can't be bothered to pay. It's no different to the fact that I want people who refuse to pay their train fare removed from the train.
Exceptions can be and are made for people who have registered that they have a critical medical need for electricity, e.g. to refrigerate medication.
I have a smart meter, I like it because it means I get accurate bills without having to do anything. I don't see any problem with that at all.
Not particularly, but the point was that I was decried as conspiratorial for suggesting that that is what would happen. And then it happened.
And the energy companies were rather pushing the definition of "extended period".
It used to take months or years to get electricity cut off, they were doing it in weeks.
I wouldn't say it was conspiratorial to suggest that if it's easier to cut people off for not paying their electricity bill that more people would be cut off. I would say that is (a) obvious and (b) a good thing. Pay your bills, arrange a payment plan or move to a prepayment meter. That simple.
And the energy companies were rather pushing the definition of "extended period".
It used to take months or years to get electricity cut off, they were doing it in weeks.
I don't have a problem with that. It's not free. Cough up. The sooner people who aren't paying are cut off, the less I'm having to pay towards their bills.
See also people who drag out eviction proceedings with all manner of bad-faith challenges when the situation is simply that they've neither paid their rent nor sorted out an appropriate plan to do so. A friend of mine is a housing officer for a housing association and he gets loads of it all the time, he very often has to go to Court to get possession orders and the likes. There are the genuine cases and they are very accommodating to them, but far too may of them simply don't prioritise paying for the roof over their head because they know they can get away with not doing so.
Or more for the Forum, people who simply never pay their train fare (or buy the wrong ticket knowing it's not valid) and then come and whine on Disputes and Prosecutions when they're asked to pay it all back.
Thats because, if you decide that all the other arguments are conspiracies, the only remaining explanation for why the government is doing this is because Tony Blair did it.
The government, when it frequently runs out of ideas, just mindlessly apes Tony Blair.
Tony Blair wanted ID cards and continues to propose them as the "solution" to any problem he can, so now Starmer wants ID cards.
This system will achieve nothing with regards to immigration, its just todays preferred reason that expansion of government control is essential. Just like terrorism was for Blair.
I would mention that irrespective of political rosette, the UK has questionable form in the 'papers please' society now, in the so-called Vaxxine Passports that quickly materialised 5 years or so ago.
Again, we find an erroneous conclusion! The problem here was not smart meters, but rather, energy companies abusing their powers in court. See also - the Post Office prosecuting postmasters (Horizon) and on this very forum the many discussions about Train Operating Companies misusing their powers and the resulting legal problems.
You've made technology the boogeyman, both with Smart Meters and ID Cards, and the truth is more complicated.
I would mention that irrespective of political rosette, the UK has questionable form in the 'papers please' society now, in the so-called Vaxxine Passports that quickly materialised 5 years or so ago.
Vaxxine Passports were a real thing, from what I remember. I'd have thought the NHS app and digital ID would feel like natural future bedmates should another health emergency be declared, God forbid.
Vaxxine Passports were a real thing, from what I remember. I'd have thought the NHS app and digital ID would feel like natural future bedmates should another health emergency be declared, God forbid.
Yes, I know they were. My point was that @HSTEd stated that putting IT infrastructure in place for something like that wasn't quick, and you provided evidence that it was in fact put in place quickly.
There are many imaginative ideas about the dangers that such an electronic ID could pose. Most of them probably fall into the realm of conspiracy theories or ignorance of the technical possibilities / impossibilities.
When it comes to transferring as little data as possible as securely as possible, a properly designed electronic ID is the right way to go.
A comprehensive user profile cannot be created from a correctly planned e-ID, as it is explicitly designed for data-efficient and pseudonymous identification. Data protection is ensured by encrypting the data, which is only stored locally on the device, and by creating pseudonymous identifiers for each individual service. This prevents user behaviour from being tracked across different services and thus does not allow profile-specific data to be created. Such a system does not require a database in the background and allows the user to provide only the data necessary for a specific service. For the purchase of alcohol, for example, only the information ‘age ok’ is necessary. No name, no date of birth. No ‘selfie submission’ is necessary either, as the ID is authenticated by being issued via secure channels. The user sees which data is requested and can agree or disagree to this request.
Something else a digital ID would help resolve is our ambiguous voter ID system. It's been discussed plenty on and off this forum how certain ID types are valid but others are not, including different Oyster card types. While voter ID certificates can be applied for free, it's still extra hassle. If a Digital ID can be used as proof of voting, then that somewhat settles the issue.
Indeed, talk of "social credit" and "denying access to social venues" (and there are other examples in this thread) is definitely conspiracy territory.
I was told, on these very pages, by people that the idea that people would use the cut off switches in smart meters to cut more people off was delusional, since they could totally cut people off anyway.
And then a year or so later we had a scandal with energy companies increasing the number of disconnections (or defacto disconnections) by orders of magnitude, since now they could put thousands of cut off notices through the court and implement them that same afternoon at the touch of a button.
Once you radically increase the ease of some action being taken, it will be used far more.
Smart meters are a brilliant example. Not just the disconnections, but pricing. We were all categorically told that smart meters would not be used to charge people more money at peak times, that smart meters would definitely not be used to penalise people who have to use electricity at certain times.
And what do you know, it turns out that smart meters are used for that exact purpose. Oh sure, it's sold as a "discount" if you use electricity "off-peak", but that's semantics. People who use electricity at peak times pay more. They said they wouldn't use smart meters to do this, yet here we are, that's what they're doing.
But how does a national Digital ID system do either of those things?
It's easy to throw out soundbites, "oh it'll stop people working illegally". Yes, but how? How will it do that? And how will it do that in a way that other, much less intrusive, methods can't? I have a passport which proves my right to be in the UK. It has a chip in it which can be verified. My employer checks that passport. If they don't, they might get fined. Legitimate employers will care about that. Illegitimate employers, well, won't. So what does a Digital ID do differently?
My view, as with so many of these ludicrous plans, is that the whole scheme only makes any sense whatsoever if it is to be used as the thin end of the wedge.
The issue with the UK right to work legislation is that there isn't a fool-proof way of checking a British/Irish Citizen right to work. Not every citizen will hold a passport. In Europe (and most countries around the world), basically every citizen will carry their national ID.
And what do you know, it turns out that smart meters are used for that exact purpose. Oh sure, it's sold as a "discount" if you use electricity "off-peak", but that's semantics. People who use electricity at peak times pay more. They said they wouldn't use smart meters to do this, yet here we are, that's what they're doing.
Differential electricity pricing has been a thing that power companies have offered for decades, far before any smart meters existed, it's not a smart meter invention. Sure smart meters gave rise to newer rip-off commercial practices, but that ain't what started it.
And I would be very surprised if that was mandatory, it very much isn't over the channel.
Not at all. It shouldn't be mandatory, it should be optional. If you want one, fair do, that's your individual rights and liberty to do so. I don't want one.
I purposely don't use social media (Facebook etc.) for the same reason.
Luckily for you, it won’t be required to be carried in public. It‘ll be required to be held to be able to work.
Will digital ID be compulsory and what else could it be used for?
Digital ID will be available to all UK citizens and legal residents, and mandatory in order to work.
However, for students, pensioners or others not seeking work, having a digital ID will be optional.
Officials also stress it will not function like a traditional identity card: people will not be required to carry it in public.
Ministers have ruled out requiring the ID for access to healthcare or welfare payments.
However, the system is being designed to integrate with some government services, to make applications simpler and reduce fraud.
The government said that, in time, digital IDs would make it easier to apply for services such as driving licences, childcare and welfare. It said it would also simplify access to tax records.
Not at all. It shouldn't be mandatory, it should be optional. If you want one, fair do, that's your individual rights and liberty to do so. I don't want one.
I purposely don't use social media (Facebook etc.) for the same reason.
The only time this was a (largely foreign) government requirement was as part of international travel. The concept of showing proof of vaccination to enter a country is nothing new.
Smart meters are a brilliant example. Not just the disconnections, but pricing. We were all categorically told that smart meters would not be used to charge people more money at peak times, that smart meters would definitely not be used to penalise people who have to use electricity at certain times.
And what do you know, it turns out that smart meters are used for that exact purpose. Oh sure, it's sold as a "discount" if you use electricity "off-peak", but that's semantics. People who use electricity at peak times pay more. They said they wouldn't use smart meters to do this, yet here we are, that's what they're doing.
The recent scandal around forced disconnection and imposition of prepaid meters for non-payment had nothing to do with the type of meter in use.
Variable pricing is an opt in feature, which many people consider useful when they have the means to take advantage of it. Anyone else can have the same generic single fixed price / economy 7 tariff as they had before (huh - who knew cheap off peak electricity existed before smart meters?!!), though suppliers like octopus give you periods of free electricity regardless of the tariff you are on.
There are strong parallels between the examples people keep raising and what this is likely to be, in that the government can already do all the spooky scary things claimed, and the data collected is already present and duplicated multiple times over in various government databases.
Looking at what has been stated by the PM. Nobody will be stopped in the street and required to produce this ID. The initial use will be to prove entitlement to work.
Home Office raids on places of work already exist. Will anybody be required to produce this ID while at work ?
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
