bahnause
Member
Why would it not be on your phone? The whole point of putting it into a device (doesn't have to be a phone) is to make it as safe as possible. You can connect it to a database, but it would be completely unnecessary and rather dumb.
-
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!
Should we have a universal ID card?
- Thread starter Vexed
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
As safe as possible yes, but only as safe as the phone is. Phone thefts will go through the roof I imagine, as they'll suddenly become much more valuable to criminals. Snatched out of your hand while you're using it (so it's unlocked) and, boom, they've got your ID right there.
bahnause
Member
I see no reasonable reason to restrict the use of such a digital ID in any way. It can (and should) also be used voluntarily for other purposes. Why, for example, should its use for age verification be excluded? Every user can decide that for themselves. My e-ID is primarily intended for identification purposes. This is the standard range of functions. However, I can also integrate additional functions on a voluntary basis, such as a driving licence or an organ donor card.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
My phone is of no use without me. The same cannot be said about physical cards.
Last edited:
the UK gov has said there will be some sort of "physical alternative" for those who can't or don't want to use a phone. I presume this will be an NFC enabled card, similar to other European ID cards.
Why would they be more valuable than they are now? What use is there for this data if it should fall into the hands of a thief? Although both will be secured by the same biometric (face/fingerprint), they'd surely be more interested in trying to use it to spend your money than on using your ID that has your photo on it. In both cases the card/ID could be revoked and reissued. More secure than if someone gets my birth certificate or driving licence scan (see the recent discord data breach).
CharlieSpotted
Member
- Joined
- 21 May 2014
- Messages
- 975
Therefore making your own life more difficult... a perfect example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Did you do the same with your plastic card that says the words "driving licence" on it, or the passport that contains an NFC chip?
1D54
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2019
- Messages
- 1,470
How will it possibly make my life more difficult? I don't buy into what this shambolic government say about the benefits of the digital ID card in any way shape or form.. I'd not take this off a Conservative government so I'll certainly not take it off these charlatans.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
No driving licence and purchasing a passport was my choice as i wish to travel abroad.
If it won't make your life more difficult then you are doing nothing symbolic or meaningful at all by refusing one.
1D54
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2019
- Messages
- 1,470
I do not consent to it and yes you may very well have a good point but 'opting out' in my own little way makes me feel a hell of a lot better.
Unless "mission creep" happens (which is a possibility), the only people who will need one will be those who are entering the job market for the first time and need to prove their Right to Work to their potential employer. If someone is already in a job, or is retired, they do not need it. So why have one? It's just about data minification .
To expand on this point - employers are already legally required to conduct right to work checks, e.g. citizenship, indefinite leave to remain etc, including verifying government-issued ID.
If they're not doing those checks and paying people cash in hand at the moment, they're hardly likely to change their ways.
There are plenty of employers verifying right to work, and landlords verifying right to rent who are being duped by physical ID requirements at the moment, which can be as little as a birth certificate and some other letter from some other government agency.
It is far more difficult to fake a "Britcard" (or whatever nonsense name they come up with) than that. It also removes the sketchy "I didn't know the letter was a fake" defence employers can advance when caught, even if they are dishonest.
How does it "minify" anything? The government already holds all the requisite data on you, and it is already used if you make use of the government's various online services. Of course it would be more secure to log in with a non-clonable piece of ID rather than a simple username and password as you do now.
We are essentially 99% of the way there already. 99.5% once the separately announced digital driving licence launches (which no one seems concerned about, perhaps because it isn't called an ID card). But it's apparently the small final step that gets people riled up.
I suspect it will be inevitable that this new ID will be accepted for any existing legal requirement to provide or check ID. That is not in itself an example of mission creep, rather just common sense.
If they don't then it still makes enforcement and prosecution much easier when the Border Force turns up. For everyone else who does play by the rules, it also reduces the risk of fake documents being used, as that chip shop owner would attest to.
Last edited:
gabrielhj07
Established Member
Mission creep already well underway. Still yet to find out what exactly a 13 year old might need this for. Can anyone here remember needing to verify their right to work/rent at that age?
What do you think the mission creep is here? You haven't said what it is or what the government's motives might be.
Yes, 13 year olds need to verify their right to work. I started work at 14 and needed to supply at least my birth certificate. This was in early 2001. Is that satisfactory?
Cloud Strife
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 2,964
My Polish digital ID card is secured via biometrics at every access. Snatching my phone won't achieve anything, as you won't be able to open the app, even if the phone is unlocked. You can use a password as well, but the password cannot be saved on the phone. So no, you won't have access to any details if you steal someone's phone.
Right now, you can turn up with a handwritten Irish birth certificate and an easily faked letter from a UK government agency and voila, you've proven that you've got the right to work. I don't have a clue how an Irish birth certificate looks like, and neither do the vast majority of people in the UK.
I'd actually say that it makes everything so much easier. If Border Force turn up, then it's a very straightforward task to check these digital ID cards. No messing about with documents, no having to verify whether they're genuine or not, nada. If the system is done properly, it should be perfectly possible to actually record somewhere that an employer has checked a given digital ID card before employment started. Let's say some guy turns up and wants to start a new job. The employer can verify their digital ID card using their own digital ID card, and that verification can be stored in a write-once/read-many database. Border Force turn up, and they can instantly access that information. There is absolutely no doubt, and it reduces the 'right to work' checks to an absolute minimum while giving employers the certainty that the person in front of them is who they say they are.
It's ridiculous how much easier it is with a digital ID. On mine, I can see my car insurance details, I can see if my car is due an MOT, I can prove my entitlement to a discount on public transport, I have my driving licence, etc etc. All of this used to require endless documents, and now everything is stored in a single app. The brilliant thing is that it works for the public sector too: when I was last stopped for speeding, all they needed was my Polish personal identity number and they could check everything. No need to mess around with producing documents, no need to visit the police station, it was all there for them and they could see instantly who I claimed to be.
Or let's take another example: I needed to sort out something in my local council office recently. I went there and explained the issue, and instead of filling out yet another form, all I needed to do was use my digital ID card to authorise sending my information to their systems. They could then automatically fill in all the details, and then I digitally signed the form. All very nice, easy and convenient, and far more secure than relying on a handwritten form that might or might not have been submitted by me.
When I applied for a passport, I didn't need to take anything. They had everything available to them, all I needed was my digital ID card. They produced all the relevant documentation automatically, I signed my name on a tablet, confirmed my identity with my digital ID card and job done. No need to fill out forms, no need to bring documents, nothing.
gabrielhj07
Established Member
It started as right to work checks to stop illegal working (no practical difference from the present), then it became an easier way to access government services. No doubt there will be another new and exciting use case announced shortly.
It was, and so far still is, limited to those right to work checks, ie no need for it if you’re retired, but they’re already thinking about expanding the age scope in one direction, how long before they do so again?
Personally, I couldn’t care less about having an app on my phone, I’m commenting on the government’s inability/refusal to communicate what it is they’re doing. I’ve no idea what their end goal is, I doubt if they’ve thought that far ahead. Changing their position and drip feeding scope enhancements is exactly what leads people to believe they are not being honest and they are hiding something.
Because the ID is digital it is a significant *practical* difference. Practical meaning "concerning the actual use or doing of something" - this is the whole crux of the matter.
Yes? Of course it'll make it easier.
Because there have been two use cases mentioned already?
Following this logic, are you suggesting that children under 13 will legally be allowed to work? It is being consulted on its use at that age because that is the lower limit children are allowed to do any work.
I don't think the communication around this has been very good but Britain is uniquely fearful of ID, and selectively so too. It isn't a great feature of our democracy and hampers the state.
gabrielhj07
Established Member
The duty of employers to establish the right to work in the UK of prospective employees won’t change.
Of course it will. My observation was that they announced this revelation *after* they’d already introduced it as a scheme for dealing with something else.
No. Other end of the spectrum actually. At present, pensioners won’t need digital ID, nor will anybody not seeking employment (notwithstanding the other benefits, government services etc). If I were a betting man, I’d say that digital ID will eventually be made a requirement to claim a state pension. This is the level of ‘mission creep’ I would suspect.
Full agreement on your last point.
Razorblades
Member
Liz Kendall made a statement in parliament yesterday about the benefits of this proposal.
Direct quotes from her prepared soliloquy:
Forgive me if I state unequivocally that this was NEVER about new recruits at Deliveroo.
Direct quotes from her prepared soliloquy:
- This is about giving people power and control over their lives
- Control over the public services they use
- How they access benefits, childcare and housing support
- Control over their data and who sees it
- The choices they make to rent or buy a home
- apply for a job
- open a bank account
Forgive me if I state unequivocally that this was NEVER about new recruits at Deliveroo.
So it's going to make it easier to access government services and the few specific areas in which employers, landlords/agents and banks already have the legal requirement to know who you are (including "new recruits at Deliveroo"). Which is what everyone has been saying all along.
Not exactly an earthshattering lie. I'm not sure why people (who will simply be against this no matter what the facts are) pretend that when the government listed one specific use case, it was going to be that and nothing more. Any excuse to use the words "scope creep" or the incredibly tedious and meaningless "papers please".
The Deliveroo issue won't be fixed by this.
New riser account holders already have to provide evidence of right to work in the UK.
The bigger issue with Deliveroo, Uber Eats, etc is that because they class their workers as self-employed, they are entitled to use substitutes. So if I'm a Deliveroo rider I can legally let me neighbour use my account. In theory I should check that they have a right to work in the UK, but nobody enforces this for the rider apps. So you end up with one account holder and maybe half a dozen 'undocumented' people using it.
Frankly the fact that these riders are considered self-employed is a farce. It allows the delivery companies to get away with not offering holiday pay, pensions, maternity leave, etc.
The government should focus on cracking down on the gig economy abusing current employment and IR35 legislation in this way.
This is also what allows then delivery companies to pay primarily based on deliveries rather than hours worked. Paying per delivery encourages riders to take risks such as cycling on pavements, running red lights, using illegal e-bikes, all so that they can deliver as quickly as possible. Whereas riders from PedalMe in London, or Dominos, are paid predominantly by hour, which means they don't have to run red lights to make their job pay.
A national ID card will not solve this issue at all.
Yorkshire09876
Member
The original claim was that it would be about proving right to work. Clearly, the points quoted above go well beyond that and some of them are in no way related to it.
Plus, as others have said, it'll do nothing to stop those employers who are currently not checking right to work in the UK.
And it was not in the current government's election manifesto. Yet another case (among many) of parties getting elected and then ignoring their manifesto and doing whatever they like.
What the government actually said at the time: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-digital-id-scheme-to-be-rolled-out-across-uk
And before we get into the "Tonty Blair and Oracle made Starmer do this" - as has been repeatedly pointed out, this stuff has been in the works for years:
Of course it was later clarified that it will not be a legal requirement to carry this ID at all times nor present your ID as part of a stop and search (and yes, an immigration raid is not the same thing), but that still isn't enough for some.
Regarding manifestos - you should surely be happy that it isn't in there, because it now means the Lords can theoretically block or delay any new legislation that may be required. Not that manifestos have ever been a legally binding document.
Last edited:
I’ll reserve judgement until somebody decides what it’s actually going to do and what the obligation on the individual is going to be - how, for example, is it going to be different from the NHS app which I use to request repeat prescriptions?
Cloud Strife
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 2,964
The problem is that it should be introduced with a clear sense of purpose. It would be enough to actually bring in a proper ID card and to say it straight: it will be mandatory, it will be free, and it will be required to access public services. At the same time, point out that anyone opposing it is actually opposing national security.
When I think about it, it's truly bonkers that any EU citizen can fly to Dublin, go into the UK and quite happily live as a British citizen without actually having any proof of it beyond a forged birth certificate and some bills. Would anyone really pick up on a well-educated European with a generic British accent as being an illegal immigrant? I doubt it, especially as things like renter identity checks are only a thing in England and not in the rest of the UK. Thinking a bit more: any European who runs their own business online could very easily live for years undetected, especially with an easily-forged birth certificate.
But thinking here: imagine you get raided by Border Force. If you don't have a driving licence or passport, exactly how do you prove your identity?
Yorkshire09876
Member
Ah yes, demonize anyone who objects. Same old tactic!
Surely that can work the other way though? Any of us can fly or get the ferry to Belfast then just stroll across the border and into the EU with no checks. I would imagine that people living in the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland border go in and out of the EU dozens of times a week just when they're driving around in their daily lives. And then if we wanted to avoid all the biometric checks for non-EU people that have just come in we could fly to our EU destination from Dublin airport. As it would be EU to EU we could skip all the fingerprint checks that we would have to go through if we were flying from the UK (non EU).
- Status