Should we have a universal ID card?

[Bletchleyite]

There are countless examples where they have entrapped people.

I also have no time for people who litter. But these wardens are paid per ticket, essentially, and so morals and ethics go out of the window.

It's simple. Did you drop litter and fail to immediately pick it up if it was accidental? If so, then you deserve a ticket. Strict liability; there is no excuse.

I have not heard of any examples of entrapment - entrapment would be something like someone asking them where a bin was and them saying "don't worry, just throw it on the floor, I won't ticket you" and then ticketing. I have heard of plenty of covert enforcement e.g. hanging around where people are smoking in plain clothes (perhaps smoking themselves to blend in) and pouncing when (and it is a when) the dog end is dropped. That's good policing and I'm all for it, just as I'd be wholly in support of police hiding with a speed camera outside a school.

 

[sor]

I'm still trying to grasp the often repeated argument that this digital ID - which would be a modern, 21st century IT system - is somehow more vulnerable to attack and abuse than the driving licence, passport, tax and NI databases which may not meet current best practice (to put it politely) yet have not suffered any recent data breaches.

If my birth cert or NI number is leaked (and not necessarily by the government itself) then I am surely in for a much bigger headache than a digital ID that can be quickly revoked and reissued, similar to a debit card?

I see the media is reporting on a drop in support for this policy now, though how much of it is based on facts. ie people hating something because they've been told to hate it through all sorts of made up nonsense, rather than what the government had said it is actually going to be.

 

[gswindale]

See also: the hired goons at Crapita who enforce the TV Tax.

You've just lost the entire argument there by using childish name calling.

Regardless of which side of the argument people are on, and I'm currently undecided, anybody who resorts to these childish antics loses my respect and I am unable to take their point of view seriously. This is why I dont really trust politicians as they seem to frequently revert to playground arguments and name calling.

If we want a grown-up debate, please can we keep it sensible and factual?

 

[ArranArchie]

This is about the third time I've asked this question in this thread: Why would a digital ID need a database?

Either I overlooked the answers, or there weren't any.

And while we're on the subject: what does a digital ID have to do with a possible obligation to carry it or a regulation on whether the police may demand identification without justification? These are completely different issues that have nothing to do with digital ID.

How would fraudulently issued IDs be revoked if there wasn't a database to check against? Or, valid IDs that were issued but those people have since passed away?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How would fraudulently issued IDs be revoked if there wasn't a database to check against? Or, valid IDs that were issued but those people have since passed away?

It would be possible to have a setup like the railway e-ticket system where a database would exist but only of revocations (analogous to e-ticket scans). It's not optimal though.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm still trying to grasp the often repeated argument that this digital ID - which would be a modern, 21st century IT system - is somehow more vulnerable to attack and abuse than the driving licence, passport, tax and NI databases which may not meet current best practice (to put it politely) yet have not suffered any recent data breaches.

The current systems are not entirely digital.

Unless you have the physical document in your hand, you are much more limited as to what you can do with the information. You can do quite a bit of damage if you can use the information online, for instance fraudulently applying online for loans or credit cards, but this is why even online banks and financial institutions increasingly ask you to take selfies or videos with you physically holding the document when making an application. It's also worth noting that the systems operate independently of each other, so even if someone's NI number was leaked, the other systems wouldn't be breached.

I am surely in for a much bigger headache than a digital ID that can be quickly revoked and reissued, similar to a debit card?

You assume that the threat actors will target the government database rather than targeting individual citizens.

You have a one-stop-shop Digital ID which can be used to verify anything and everything to a gold standard. Someone manipulates you into handing the details over to them. Good luck persuading anyone that it wasn't really you who sent your life savings to some online scammer in Laos.

There's also the issue of device security. Phones get stolen. All the time. The press are full of reports from people who have had their bank accounts cleaned out after having their phone stolen. Now imagine what could happen if that stolen phone has a "gold standard" digital ID, a digital ID that you use for everything, on it. Good luck, that's all I can say.

Online scamming is now more valuable to organised crime groups than drug trafficking. Online scamming has netted OCGs over US$1trillion just in 2024 alone. If online scamming was a country, it would have the 20th highest GDP in the world.

I don't see online-only digital IDs as anything other than facilitating more of it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Oct 2025 ==

You've just lost the entire argument there by using childish name calling.

Oh give over.

Crapita is a well-known and well-used name for the IT and outsourcing organisation. If the name is good enough for Private Eye it is good enough for me.

They are hired goons (in my humble opinion, anyway, maybe you disagree).

It is a tax for using a TV.

 

[Mat17]

Sometimes data loss isn't even deliberate. Didn't someone leave a laptop at a bus stop once?

 

[sor]

The current systems are not entirely digital.

Unless you have the physical document in your hand, you are much more limited as to what you can do with the information. You can do quite a bit of damage if you can use the information online, for instance fraudulently applying online for loans or credit cards, but this is why even online banks and financial institutions increasingly ask you to take selfies or videos with you physically holding the document when making an application. It's also worth noting that the systems operate independently of each other, so even if someone's NI number was leaked, the other systems wouldn't be breached.

I do not need to be in physical possession of my driving licence in order to access my driving record and by extension to generate a share code for someone else to see it. I do not need a physical record of my NI number (and the government stopped issuing NI cards long ago anyway). I especially didn't need it to create nor access an online HMRC account. It is all as digital as it gets, but arguably not that secure.

Note that "I" can also mean "anyone" if they know my details.

I would however need access to either a device that contained my digital ID in its secure element, or whatever the proposed physical counterpart is going to be, in order to conduct transactions that need it.

Video recordings are far from secure or robust - again, government issued digital ID can do away with this nonsense and all the silly middlemen who claim to offer such verification services.

You assume that the threat actors will target the government database rather than targeting individual citizens.

You have a one-stop-shop Digital ID which can be used to verify anything and everything to a gold standard. Someone manipulates you into handing the details over to them. Good luck persuading anyone that it wasn't really you who sent your life savings to some online scammer in Laos.

There's also the issue of device security. Phones get stolen. All the time. The press are full of reports from people who have had their bank accounts cleaned out after having their phone stolen. Now imagine what could happen if that stolen phone has a "gold standard" digital ID, a digital ID that you use for everything, on it. Good luck, that's all I can say.

As above. In much the same way as a scammer can't extract the important details about my payment cards from my phone's secure element, why would this not also be true of a digital ID? There will always be a human factor of course but it is still an important improvement in security for the vast majority who don't believe that HMRC takes gift cards as payment.

I'm still unable to understand why our existing digital systems + highly insecure physical documents are somehow better overall than any proposed new system. It seems to work fine in countries like Belgium where a smartcard containing an eID is required to transact with the government.

 

[ValentaFan1974]

Why, for instance, should we not trust our government with this stuff but others in Europe have an identify card and don't seem to have collapsed as a nation and seem to enjoy similar freedoms to us?

Because our current government is a complete sh*tshow?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I do not need to be in physical possession of my driving licence in order to access my driving record and by extension to generate a share code for someone else to see it.

No, but if you wish to use that driving licence as proof of your identity then you do need to be in possession of the photocard. Same with your passport.

I especially didn't need it to create nor access an online HMRC account.

You also needed to provide other information in order to create that HMRC account.

In much the same way as a scammer can't extract the important details about my payment cards from my phone's secure element, why would this not also be true of a digital ID?

No, but if they can break through the face ID or the passcode then they can use your payment cards to their heart's content. There have been countless stories of people having their phones stolen and then having their bank accounts emptied.

In terms of security, the physical element should not be overlooked. If a scammer in Thailand gets hold of my passport number they can cause some damage but that damage is limited. Without holding the document their actions are more limited. Labour's plan is that there will not be any sort of physical document, it'll all be online only.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Oct 2025 ==

Because our current government is a complete sh*tshow?

And the Faragists coming down the line are even worse.

It's not just about what today's government would do.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

What do you expect when the issues have been thoroughly de-bunked as conspiracy nonsense? Yet people still persist with this twaddle.

But the issues haven't been 'debunked'. Dismissing every objection as 'conspiracy nonsense' does not 'debunk' them.

If you want to trust the government to collect only appropriate data and to use and secure it responsibly, and for them (and future governments) not to engage in mission creep then that's up to you, but many of us simply do not trust them with any of these issues.

 

[bahnause]

How would fraudulently issued IDs be revoked if there wasn't a database to check against? Or, valid IDs that were issued but those people have since passed away?

By revoking the underlying certificate of the Certificate Authority that issued it. If there is any uncertainty, you can have your e-ID blocked immediately at any time (if the ID is designed correctly). It is not necessary to include personal data from individual electronic proofs of identity in these registers. This will make it impossible to link usage data from different proofs of identity in order to create personalised user profiles.

 

[DustyBin]

That isn't a good answer. Sorry but I must ask the question again: How would they do that? Why? What would be the goal?

If you are suggesting that there is a risk that the government could use ID cards to control out lives you must explain how you think that could happen and why. We can debate these points but we must have something to debate!

Perhaps not as a one liner, but it really underpins my concerns.

Again, I'm not convinced there's a grand conspiracy to control every aspect of our day to day lives, but I'm wary of anything that could allow an increased level of interference in the name of "doing the right thing". This actually happened five years ago where we saw well-meaning (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here!) but ultimately highly damaging state overreach in response to a so-called crisis. When the next "crisis" comes along (actually it's already here!) I'd prefer it if the state didn't have the means to exercise such overreach more effectively.

Now, I appreciate I'm venturing into what you may regard as conspiracy nonsense here, but I believe it's likely we'll see the introduction of a Centralised Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) by the end of the decade. If (or when) this is introduced, it's almost certain to be linked to the proposed digital ID. As it stands, the official line is that there's no plan to phase out physical cash or make the CBDC programmable, however there was no plan to introduce a digital ID 12 months ago so I'm sceptical of these assurances. If this were to materialise it would massively increase the ease with which the state could interfere in our day to day lives (all in the name of doing good, obviously!).

The issue I have isn't the introduction of a national ID card per se, it's more the digital format and the probability of mission creep. There are of course a lot of ifs buts and maybes in the above, I accept that, but these kind of concerns are entirely valid in my opinion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, but if they can break through the face ID or the passcode then they can use your payment cards to their heart's content. There have been countless stories of people having their phones stolen and then having their bank accounts emptied.

This is not done by breaking through the Face ID or passcode. Face ID can't be fooled with a photo on most phones (bar some older ones), it is sensible to wipe the screen so the passcode numbers aren't visible, though.

It is done by taking the SIM out of the phone and putting it in another one, at which point you can sign up a new access to the banking app and gain access. It's one reason why e-sims are a good thing as you can no longer do that. The only mitigation against that form of attack if you have a physical SIM is a SIM PIN (needing to be entered when a phone is powered up with the SIM in) which most people don't set but probably should.

The other mechanism is where people show their text notifications when the phone is locked - you can also get the code that way. If your phone is set to show notifications when locked you REALLY want to change that setting.

It is worth understanding how these things work when evaluating risks about them.

It's notable that some banks have mitigated against this too - for a large transfer on Monzo you have to enter the *bank* PIN i.e. your card PIN, not the phone one. Thus cracking the phone means you can see my bank statement but not actually send money anywhere in any significant quantity.

 

[Mat17]

Perhaps not as a one liner, but it really underpins my concerns.

Again, I'm not convinced there's a grand conspiracy to control every aspect of our day to day lives, but I'm wary of anything that could allow an increased level of interference in the name of "doing the right thing". This actually happened five years ago where we saw well-meaning (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here!) but ultimately highly damaging state overreach in response to a so-called crisis. When the next "crisis" comes along (actually it's already here!) I'd prefer it if the state didn't have the means to exercise such overreach more effectively.

Now, I appreciate I'm venturing into what you may regard as conspiracy nonsense here, but I believe it's likely we'll see the introduction of a Centralised Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) by the end of the decade. If (or when) this is introduced, it's almost certain to be linked to the proposed digital ID. As it stands, the official line is that there's no plan to phase out physical cash or make the CBDC programmable, however there was no plan to introduce a digital ID 12 months ago so I'm sceptical of these assurances. If this were to materialise it would massively increase the ease with which the state could interfere in our day to day lives (all in the name of doing good, obviously!).

The issue I have isn't the introduction of a national ID card per se, it's more the digital format and the probability of mission creep. There are of course a lot of ifs buts and maybes in the above, I accept that, but these kind of concerns are entirely valid in my opinion.

You've summed up my concerns.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You've summed up my concerns.

In what way can a CBDC control things that the present system of card payments can't? I fear a bit of a descent into "CaSh Is KiNg"* here.

* "Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity, cash is king". It has nothing whatsoever to do with coins and notes and anyone using it for that is misquoting it.

 

[Mat17]

In what way can a CBDC control things that the present system of card payments can't? I fear a bit of a descent into "CaSh Is KiNg"* here.

* "Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity, cash is king". It has nothing whatsoever to do with coins and notes and anyone using it for that is misquoting it.

Not at all. Gold is money, everything else is credit, including fiat. But we're off topic here.

My concerns about CBDC is what happens if you get debanked? It's happened to plenty of people. At least with cash there's alternatives. When it comes to finances diversity is key. You should never put all your eggs in one basket.

 

[Railwaycat]

If we lived in a stable, peaceful world, there would be no need for an ID card, or any other system. But we don't.

A few months ago, we had the test of the emergency warning system (or whatever it's called). No need to panic, lots of countries have similar, it can (and has been) used for any kind of disaster/impending threat to life. Now we have a proposed ID system, no need to panic, it's to help find illegal immigrants etc. Now, these two events are probably not linked, but in the event (we all pray it doesn't happen) of major hostilities in Europe that will inevitably involve us, both warning systems and an ID card for all adults would be needed, and without delay. So, it seems prudent to me to have an ID card in place now (and the card should be physical, not just on a phone). It shouldn't be compulsory to carry it in normal times, only if the worst came to the worst.

We don't know what the government knows 'behind the scenes' re the current threat from Putin, and we aren't likely to, but to me there's too much talk about Russia being a 'paper tiger' that can be disregarded - a wounded animal is a dangerous one. We send up Typhoons to intercept Russian aircraft approaching our airspace, we shadow Russian vessels approaching our waters, yet we aren't at war, it's a precaution. And so is having an ID system, the world has become a dangerous place.

 

[signed]

You assume that the threat actors will target the government database rather than targeting individual citizens.

You have a one-stop-shop Digital ID which can be used to verify anything and everything to a gold standard. Someone manipulates you into handing the details over to them. Good luck persuading anyone that it wasn't really you who sent your life savings to some online scammer in Laos.

There's also the issue of device security. Phones get stolen. All the time. The press are full of reports from people who have had their bank accounts cleaned out after having their phone stolen. Now imagine what could happen if that stolen phone has a "gold standard" digital ID, a digital ID that you use for everything, on it. Good luck, that's all I can say.

Online scamming is now more valuable to organised crime groups than drug trafficking. Online scamming has netted OCGs over US$1trillion just in 2024 alone. If online scamming was a country, it would have the 20th highest GDP in the world.

I don't see online-only digital IDs as anything other than facilitating more of it.

If you get to the point of someone breaking into locked (If people live with unlocked phones or easily guessed PINs that's their loss) phones, you are at the nation-state level.

Sure, people can get battered into giving their PINs, but what's different to getting a credit card stolen, a company badge stolen? Force and Violence will still be efficient in doing whatever OCGs want.

I agree wholly with the don't put your eggs into one basket, but you won't stop that trend.

Someone manipulates you into handing the details over to them

What details can you get from device-tied tokens? Sure you can soc-eng someone into entering their PINs or allowing to remote into the phone (for remoting, it's very easy for apps to prevent screen remoting) but what's different to any other systems, your bank for example?

If social engineering is your biggest concern, even a physical-card system is far from being social-engineering proof.

 

[DarloRich]

This actually happened five years ago where we saw well-meaning (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here!) but ultimately highly damaging state overreach in response to a so-called crisis. When the next "crisis" comes along (actually it's already here!) I'd prefer it if the state didn't have the means to exercise such overreach more effectively.

We shall disagree on this but it wasn't a "so called crisis". It was an actual crisis. Luckily, not as bad as it could have been. Next time............

This scam covid based thinking easily ( sadly far too easily) leads to conspiracy. it is a real worry how easily these crankisms link together and seem to pull people into a logical black hole.

If this were to materialise it would massively increase the ease with which the state could interfere in our day to day lives (all in the name of doing good, obviously!).

I agree - I just debate the likelihood and the objective such a decision would achieve.

The issue I have isn't the introduction of a national ID card per se, it's more the digital format and the probability of mission creep. There are of course a lot of ifs buts and maybes in the above, I accept that, but these kind of concerns are entirely valid in my opinion.

I think this is a fair point - Therefore we require a structure of laws to accompany any mandatory ID system to limit such mission creep. The first of these is the evil Human Rights Act!

When it comes to finances diversity is key. You should never put all your eggs in one basket.

most people in the UK haven't got a pot to piddle in financially speaking! You cant diversify nowt!

We send up Typhoons to intercept Russian aircraft approaching our airspace, we shadow Russian vessels approaching our waters, yet we aren't at war, it's a precaution. And so is having an ID system, the world has become a dangerous place.

Whilst I don't disagree with you the counter argument would be :

"In the cold war we did all of this ( and more) and didn't need an ID card. Why do we need one now - what's different?"

 

[43096]

But the issues haven't been 'debunked'. Dismissing every objection as 'conspiracy nonsense' does not 'debunk' them.

If you want to trust the government to collect only appropriate data and to use and secure it responsibly, and for them (and future governments) not to engage in mission creep then that's up to you, but many of us simply do not trust them with any of these issues.

So you have no evidence at all other than some mythical future if, but, maybe. That’s conspiracy nonsense territory.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If you get to the point of someone breaking into locked (If people live with unlocked phones or easily guessed PINs that's their loss) phones, you are at the nation-state level.

We are dealing with OCGs who have incomes at the nation state level.

Look at what is going on in the border region between Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos.

I think this is a fair point - Therefore we require a structure of laws to accompany any mandatory ID system to limit such mission creep. The first of these is the evil Human Rights Act!

The Human Rights Act that the main opposition party would abolish tomorrow?

Therefore we require a structure of laws to accompany any mandatory ID system to limit such mission creep.

No law can limit such a mission creep. Certainly not within our current electoral system, where the winner takes it all and have the votes to do whatever they want.

You ask about the difference between us and Europe. That's the big one. European governments are (by and large) collegiate. The Dutch government has just collapsed because nobody else in the coalition wanted to do what the far right members of the coalition wanted to do. Belgium, famously, went 541 days after an election before establishing a government.

Remember, also, that it is an established legal principle that Parliament cannot bind a future Parliament. Any legislation can be changed on a vote. And if you have enough votes, you can change anything you want. Any promises made today are meaningless because the next chap (or chapess) in charge can change anything or everything. Jack Straw promised, when implementing the current terrorism legislation, that it wouldn't be used to target protest groups, yet Palestine Action have been proscribed as terrorists and 2,000 people have been arrested for disagreeing with this proscription. If the right got their way you'd probably also see Just Stop Oil be proscribed too.

but in the event (we all pray it doesn't happen) of major hostilities in Europe that will inevitably involve us, both warning systems and an ID card for all adults would be needed, and without delay. So, it seems prudent to me to have an ID card in place now

We didn't have ID cards in the 1960s and the 1980s when Europe truly was on the brink of nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Unlike modern Russia, the Soviet Union actually had the firepower. So why do we need ID cards now?

When the next "crisis" comes along (actually it's already here!) I'd prefer it if the state didn't have the means to exercise such overreach more effectively.

Anything is a crisis if you want it to be.

Digital ID cards are being touted as the solution to the people coming across the Channel on dinghies. The boat people are apparently a major crisis. How many boat people came across last year? 36,000. More people go and watch Leeds United every week.

This scam covid based thinking easily ( sadly far too easily) leads to conspiracy.

Was Covid a scam? No, it was a genuine issue although I do think lots of governments all panicked with no real reason to.

Although lots of scammers used it as an opportunity, that's a different story. Mostly with the blessing of the Conservative Party and their VIP lane. The moral from that is that there is always opportunity in a crisis.

But we saw a massive overreach in response to the perceived threat, and that overreach was different even between the devolved nations. Wales went completely off the deep end, sending armed police out to raid a cinema in Swansea, not to mention the whole Chester City fiasco. The Isle of Man government put people in prison for going to Tesco. The English just fined people obscene amounts of money, although the English police did have quite a bit of fun chasing people around with drones because they dared to go for a walk in the countryside. Elsewhere in the world we had the situation where people weren't allowed into premises if they couldn't prove they'd had a particular medical procedure.

Maybe the Covid response was proportionate to the threat, maybe it wasn't. My view is most countries went off the deep end in a blind panic when they didn't need to. My view is also that I can understand why they went off the deep end.

But as I've said above, crises are incredibly easy to create out of thin air if you are so minded. The boat people are a case in point. 36,000 people and Starmer's using that as justification for spending billions of pounds- money he is at great pains to point out we don't have- on a digital ID scheme. 36,000 people.

 

[Railwaycat]

We shall disagree on this but it wasn't a "so called crisis". It was an actual crisis. Luckily, not as bad as it could have been. Next time............

It certainly was, too many died (a friends father was one of them) even with the precautions that were taken.

Whilst I don't disagree with you the counter argument would be :

"In the cold war we did all of this ( and more) and didn't need an ID card. Why do we need one now - what's different?"

I think there was far more political stability on both sides during the cold war, plus a view that any war would be all out nuclear (and the living would envy the dead...). These days we could have massive disruption to the supply chain, and resultant shortages (and there's where an ID card could come in) with very few shots being fired.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

So you have no evidence at all other than some mythical future if, but, maybe. That’s conspiracy nonsense territory.

What sort of "evidence" are you looking for? I have explained why I have concerns - concerns which are clearly shared by many people given the level of opposition to this. As usual, your idea of "debate" seems to be to just throw insults at anyone you don't agree with.

 

[Brubulus]

It's simple. Did you drop litter and fail to immediately pick it up if it was accidental? If so, then you deserve a ticket. Strict liability; there is no excuse.

I have not heard of any examples of entrapment - entrapment would be something like someone asking them where a bin was and them saying "don't worry, just throw it on the floor, I won't ticket you" and then ticketing. I have heard of plenty of covert enforcement e.g. hanging around where people are smoking in plain clothes (perhaps smoking themselves to blend in) and pouncing when (and it is a when) the dog end is dropped. That's good policing and I'm all for it, just as I'd be wholly in support of police hiding with a speed camera outside a school.

Back during COVID there was a pretty ridiculous case in which a council officer pretty much committed entrapment, and the council justified it on the basis of a report from residents claiming that the owner had broken the law. See also many a case with Private Hire Vehicles where one pretends to be a drunk customer and asks for a ride without booking on a private hire vehicle, though that's right on the line and could be legitimate (depending on circumstances).

Redirect Notice

 

[sor]

What sort of "evidence" are you looking for? I have explained why I have concerns - concerns which are clearly shared by many people given the level of opposition to this. As usual, your idea of "debate" seems to be to just throw insults at anyone you don't agree with.

Evidence - things that have actually happened, not what social media claims will happen.

For example - claims that this turns us into a "papers please" society (a phrase that is overused to the point of tediousness). The government has said that there will be no change to current law in that a police officer will not be able to simply demand to see this new ID as part of a stop and search. There is no change to current law in that you already do have to prove your identity in other situations.

There is actual precedent with the photocard driving licence, which is often used as a de facto form of ID card. It has been around for the best part of 30 years and it has never been mandatory to carry it even while driving. The police can demand to see it if you are pulled over (which itself requires a good reason) or were involved in an accident, but there is no requirement to do so immediately, and in practice they can use the "attitude test" and look you up in a database.

But apparently none of this matters to some.

 

[Razorblades]

If we're looking for precedents, then reflect on the creeping authoritarianism that characterised the latter stages of the 2020/2021 virus problem, with government aided and abetted by mainstream media in an active campaign to vilify and marginalise, indeed to silence, dissenting viewpoints. People were actively bullied into conforming to one point of view in fear of losing their livelihoods.

There was a narrow line of logic going on at that time which could be followed if you squinted sufficiently, but claiming that Digital ID can solve illegal migration is an untenable repeat of the Problem - Reaction - Solution paradigm by this administration.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

If we're looking for precedents, then reflect on the creeping authoritarianism that characterised the latter stages of the 2020/2021 virus problem, with government aided and abetted by mainstream media in an active campaign to vilify and marginalise, indeed to silence, dissenting viewpoints. People were actively bullied into conforming to one point of view in fear of losing their livelihoods.

There was a narrow line of logic going on at that time which could be followed if you squinted sufficiently, but claiming that Digital ID can solve illegal migration is an untenable repeat of the Problem - Reaction - Solution paradigm by this administration.

Yes, quite.

Another example is going after people for what they have written on social media. The laws were intended (and originally used) for only the most extreme cases. They are now used routinely for anything and everything which someone takes offence to - often no charges are brought, but the procedure of dragging people into police stations for formal interviews and then leaving the situation hanging for weeks or months is the punishment. Related to this are 'non-crime hate incidents'. These were a bad idea to start with - if something isn't a crime it shouldn't be recorded - but were originally intended to highlight broader trends. Now they are routinely used as a punishment by the police and put on people's records for the most trivial of reasons.

Some people on here don't seem to get the concept of 'the thin end of the wedge'. Once a system or legislation are in place, their scope often grows and ID cards are a prime example of where this is likely to happen as there are so many ways in which the scope can be expanded.

 

[LAX54]

To start with, it is ONLY for those seeking a new job, if you are not in that bracket, you dont need one, we are told it will 'stop' the boats ! However an MP did say in an interviewm before backtracking a bit, that it will form the bedrock of further intergration

 

[Cdd89]

There is actual precedent with the photocard driving licence, which is often used as a de facto form of ID card. It has been around for the best part of 30 years and it has never been mandatory to carry it even while driving.

Well this is what irritates me. Apple and Google already have the infrastructure to allow driving licenses to be displayed and validated in Wallet and which would be internationally compatible. But instead of using that system, which people would voluntarily adopt due to the convenience, the government is instead building its own overengineered app and infrastructure "like Apple Wallet". It reminds me of the Covid Track and Trace system that they spent months building in a fit of British exceptionalism, which raised privacy concerns and was beset by technical problems, only to fall back on Apple/Google's system.

ID cards will undoubtedly be cancelled, either by this government or the next, such is the scale of the backlash; if the government wanted to win people over to digitised ID systems it's gone about it in entirely the wrong way. It's a shame that, as a result, we probably won't even get digital driving licenses for the next 10+ years.