Only for those of us lucky enough to have a driving licence or passport and dont mind the pain proving id for rent, work or buying property etc.
AIUI the scheme remains, but just won't be mandatory for work, so should still provide a means to assist accessing such services.
And how would you sign up for Digital ID... basically in no different way than anything else with a passport (or driving license if they'll accept that, with alternatives if you dont have any e.g birth certificate).
So we basically do have a form of non-driving physical (at least for age and identity) ID that you can apply for in this country, but it isn't promoted or taken seriously. You also (unless you want to use a referee) need a driving license or a passport to apply for PASS cards so why would someone pay more just to get another identity card when their provisional license already does the same.
Catch 22 which no-one has the answer to.
You'll still be able to sign up for one, it's just optional for everything now.
There's national elections in Wales and Scotland in 4 months time and he knows digital ID is opposed by the majority of voters he would like to sway would be my guess.
Yes, some very welcome news this morning. Unsurprising really, given the scale of opposition to it.
It's more an indictment of how social media and right wing media has, for lack of a better term, created a lot of "brain rot". Support was relatively high before they got stuck in. As this thread shows, there aren't that many valid arguments against the proposal, just vague hand-wavy nonsense that is completely untrue or just the usual nonsense about how it will lead to a 1984 papers please tyranny.
Digital ID cards are a solution looking for a problem.
Utility bills are very easily verifiable.
Not really, its now the worst of all worlds: the government will be spending billions of our money on a pointless scheme and, as it will be voluntary, nobody will use it.
But, as others have said, how will you prove your identity for Digital ID if you don't already have those documents? There is an advantage for only having to do it the one time, admittedly, but I'm not sure that advantage is worth the £2bn or so cost of Digital ID.
I'd be cautious, to use conservative wording, about extrapolating opinion from a post on a special interest forum to the general public at large.
I feel like you didn't actually read the comments in this post then.
But this digital ID won't prove address history anyway, so you'll still have circumstances where you need to show proof of address. Take Enhanced DBS' for example - the reason for requiring address history isn't ID checking - it's so the local police forces at previous address' can be contacted to check local intelligence which isn't recorded on the PNC. The proposed digital ID doesn't appear to account for proving address history, making it a half-baked approach tbh.
The argument is how those people who don't currently have satisfactory ID (satisfactory to those wanting everything nailed down to the nth degree) can get such ID. Any solutions? If a digital ID can in future be obtained by provision of a combination of birth certificates, utility bills etc then that combination is acceptable anyway. ID which is worth it's name must by definition be difficult to obtain (and therefore be difficult to forge). How did India or Estonia enrol their (effectively) entire populations? Did they just hand them out like sweeties or have substantial hoops to go through?
They really aren't. Utility companies aren't in the business of dishing out info on their customers to random third parties. For "frontier workers", the government says utility bills proving you are not resident in the UK are acceptable as part of your proof of right to work, which I take to mean that it needs to be a bill issued by a *foreign* utility company. How on earth does an employer validate that?
I think you're placing too much emphasis on one remark. I am referring to everything I have read across all the places I post, though I mentioned this thread so others can go back and read for themselves.
Goalpost moving. DBS checks are a different beast to the standard identity checks that everyone encounters at some point in their life.
The government has access to various databases to handle this in a way that the average employer, landlord and (to some extent) banks cannot. My employer doesn't know I am a British citizen from merely presenting a birth certificate. The government can figure it out from the fact that I needed to provide my parents' birth certs to prove that I have a right to post-1982 citizenship and thus eligible for a British passport that my employer can then assume as proof of right to work, but they have no technical means to validate that I didn't show them a counterfeit passport. If I did not have a passport already, then I would be required to provide this to get one of these new digital IDs.
But you made this thread the central point of the argument?
sor said:
It's not goalpost moving to give a common use case example of how a proposed universal identity system isn't actually very useful. If it can't be used... universally... it's not very useful, just costly.
There are ways of verifying these bills and any reputable company will have access to tools which allow them to do so. There are also many ways of identifying fake or altered documents.
Verifying a passport is even easier than with utility bills. Easiest thing in the world.
I think this argument needs some more meat on the bones, rather than this constant insistence that it's so easy. What are the companies that offer these tools doing, or at least claiming to do, especially in "a few seconds"? Of course with a government digital ID we actually could have accurate results in about as short a time.
If you hold the physical passport in your hand you can check the security features of the passport as well as the MRZ data at the bottom of the page. If you have a scan or photo of the passport then you can check some of the security features of the passport as well as the MRZ data. It is very difficult to competently fake both the security features in the passport and the MRZ data. And no, you don't need to read the chip to check these things. Not all passports have chips.
It isnt just about that. Its also about how much of a pain it is. Especially going forward as utility bills themselves often arent hard documents anymore (and could easily disappear with smart meters etc). And of course just the insanity of organisations having to have long lists of ID they accept (and the knowledge needed to handle them). It's so much easier if you just had one form of ID everyone has.
And that is a carrot to implement the first (optional at first) version of digital ID.
So you jump through all of those hoops once to get a passport? It's really no different, especially because you'll need a passport to get the digital ID in the first place!
Don't be silly. Why piggy back on existing technology that works when you can design something new with higher costs and a less certain outcome? /s
Like you said, it's really polarised 'you're either on one extreme or the other' to dismiss anyones concerns or views as being driven by right wing rhetoric, or to suggest those against are right wing supporters. It's dismissing the people themselves rather than their view and there's people across the political spectrum with views against the scheme.
I despair at the tribal polarisation of so many things in the modern world. How on earth can an issue like COVID lockdowns be a left/right issue???
A passport is expensive and not an option for some people (e.g. of more complex origins).
I dont think starting a new job, renting a new place, buying a new property, opening a new bank account or credit card etc are "rare cases". They are quite frequent life events.
And maybe that is part of the solution, alongside the digital driving licence stuff thats been developed too. Im not saying the solution cant be based on something that already exists, but I am getting pretty frustrated with people who are incredibly privileged to have multiple forms of photo ID just totally ignoring the real issues other people have.
A few points:
Anyone who, for data protection reasons, sends utility bills or copies of (official) documents via unencrypted and insecure channels, or even hands them over in physical without any guarantees what data will be used for how long form instead of using a secure interface, should think twice about whether this is a good idea and beneficial for data protection.
So it costs £2 billion then.
Next fun fact: the UK is not Germany, copies are accepted in this manner here if they have been suitably certified.
It probably also helps that Estonia's population is about 1.3 million people. For context, West Yorkshire alone has a population of about 2.3 million people.
What waste?
GDPR applies in the UK.
No, they are not. I tried. And it is a waste of time and resources having to jump through all the hoops to get a certified copy of an official document with all the right parts redacted / not redacted. This is not a viable „solution“. Not for high street shops and even less for online businesses.
GDPR is not enforcable once the data is out of your hands. Passport scans and other nonsense are not tracable and cannot be revoked.
Can you please stop with your mysterious database? It is not needed for digital ID. Thos point has been mentioned multiple times now. And by the way, no need to worry anyways because
Or does it not?
How would one issue and subsequently verify a digital ID if one does not retain a record of who those digital IDs have been issued to?
Weird. My day job involves conducting due diligence on people and we accept it, as do all the other companies in our sector.
