Should we have a universal ID card?

[Yorkshire09876]

So you're convinced that the government is spending money to collect data that it already has. Seriously?

And you are convinced that the government won't see any benefit in having the data more easily accessible (i.e. aggregated), and that they won't expand what is collected once they have the capability. Seriously?

 

[bahnause]

And you are convinced that the government won't see any benefit in having the data more easily accessible (i.e. aggregated), and that they won't expand what is collected once they have the capability. Seriously?

Please explain to me how they would collect data and what data.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

Please explain to me how they would collect data and what data.

Given that only the vaguest description of how the system is 'suggested' to work have so far appeared, the 'how' really can't be answered yet. As regards the 'what' - well, there are certainly plenty of possibilities and these have already been extensively written about on many websites so really no point in going through them all again here.

Your preferred search engine will be able to find loads, but here's one site to start with which gives a long list of concerns:

Digital ID: Why It Should Be Opposed

Government to introduce digital ID scheme on pretext that it will reduce illegal migration. It wont. The scheme comes with enormous risks & should be opposed

www.theemploymentlawsolicitors.co.uk

 

[Bikeman78]

It was absolutely fine and proportionate - what is your problem with it?

I know several people that did not have the vaccine. They are all quietly getting on with life. Should they be banned from pubs or international travel? That doesn't sound proportionate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Oct 2025 ==

Thread diversion risk(!) but you can’t be serious?

Cast your mind back. There were plenty of people who wanted more restrictions, for longer. Mainly because the government terrified them. A very strange time.

 

[Mag_seven]

OK can we drop the "COVID era" discussion and stick to discussing ID cards please.

 

[Razorblades]

With the greatest respect, the government over-reach that manifested itself during that period is central to the scepticism people are feeling now about ID cards. When we're being asked 'Why?' we are using experiences from that time to support our argument.

 

[Port Road]

I don't have a problem with ID cards per se - it's the fact that they seem to be attempting to foist digital ID on us that get's my goat.
I'm a paper ticket man through and through. I grudgingly accept ownership of a mobile phone but that is my choice. This move would more or less force everyone to buy/own a mobile phone?

 

[AlterEgo]

With the greatest respect, the government over-reach that manifested itself during that period is central to the scepticism people are feeling now about ID cards. When we're being asked 'Why?' we are using experiences from that time to support our argument.

That might be the case for some people, but ID cards have been proposed long before that and were met with the same objections.

 

[Railwaycat]

I don't have a problem with ID cards per se - it's the fact that they seem to be attempting to foist digital ID on us that get's my goat.
I'm a paper ticket man through and through. I grudgingly accept ownership of a mobile phone but that is my choice. This move would more or less force everyone to buy/own a mobile phone?

I totally agree. No problem with a card, every problem with it being on a phone.
I'm sick and tired of smart phone use being forced on everybody. Ordered a door online from Wickes for home delivery - couldn't place the order if I didn't provide a mobile number, and yet there was a box for home phone number - why wasn't that enough?

 

[AlterEgo]

I totally agree. No problem with a card, every problem with it being on a phone.
I'm sick and tired of smart phone use being forced on everybody. Ordered a door online from Wickes for home delivery - couldn't place the order if I didn't provide a mobile number, and yet there was a box for home phone number - why wasn't that enough?

Nobody is talking about making it mandatory for you to have it on a smart phone. That isn't the proposal.

 

[Razorblades]

That might be the case for some people, but ID cards have been proposed long before that and were met with the same objections.

That logic is a bit like saying 'we always thought so-and-so was a bit dodgy but there was never any evidence.'

The second part of your remark suggests that the authorities really do need to engage, to dispel such fears and doubt, rather than ride roughshod over such objections and keep repeating that they know what's good for us, which they have certainly got form for.

 

[AlterEgo]

That logic is a bit like saying 'we always thought so-and-so was a bit dodgy but there was never any evidence.'

The second part of your remark suggests that the authorities really do need to engage, to dispel such fears and doubt, rather than ride roughshod over such objections and keep repeating that they know what's good for us, which they have certainly got form for.

There is no logic or any implication; I am pointing out that the exact same objections were raised with Blair's 2006 Act, which ended up being binned. This actually supports the side of the sceptic.

Opposition to ID cards is a theme running through the British political ideal and the reasons for that opposition have not changed much over time. The idea this is novel because of covid may be true for some people but in the aggregate probably doesn't turn the dial much. If covid had never happened there would still be basically the same level of opposition.

 

[Railwaycat]

Nobody is talking about making it mandatory for you to have it on a smart phone. That isn't the proposal.

So is the proposal to have an option - smartphone or physical card? If it is, then I have no problems with it.

 

[AlterEgo]

So is the proposal to have an option - smartphone or physical card? If it is, then I have no problems with it.

As per the BBC:

The government has promised the system will be "inclusive" and work for those without smartphones, passports or reliable internet access.

A public consultation expected to be launched later this year will include looking at alternatives - potentially including physical documents or face-to-face support - for groups such as older people or the homeless.

What are digital ID cards, how will they work and will they be mandatory?

The IDs will not have to be carried day-to-day, but they will be compulsory for anyone wanting to work.

www.bbc.com

The point of the scheme is to make it easier for the vast majority of people to interact with the state, businesses, or prove their right to work or rent. The current system of relying on a plethora of utility bills, birth certificates, smartphone pictures of driving licences etc is laughable for a modern democracy.

 

[ainsworth74]

The point of the scheme is to make it easier for the vast majority of people to interact with the state, businesses, or prove their right to work or rent. The current system of relying on a plethora of utility bills, birth certificates, smartphone pictures of driving licences etc is laughable for a modern democracy.

Yes but if we made it so that our "Papers please!" society was easy to navigate that would mean we were living in a "Papers please!" society. Or something. I can only assume that people who think we don't live in one and therefore this is "massive state intrusion", don't actually have to interact with the state or deal with the rules it imposes on people therefore have missed that we already do...

 

[Yorkshire09876]

Yes but if we made it so that our "Papers please!" society was easy to navigate that would mean we were living in a "Papers please!" society. Or something. I can only assume that people who think we don't live in one and therefore this is "massive state intrusion", don't actually have to interact with the state or deal with the rules it imposes on people therefore have missed that we already do...

A centralised ID system is a step which enables far more authoritarianism and surveillance in future. This is the issue with it - it's an enabling step which will lead to further erosion of automomy. Some on here seem either determined to ignore this, or have a somewhat naive trust in the current and future governments.

 

[ainsworth74]

A centralised ID system is a step which enables far more authoritarianism and surveillance in future. This is the issue with it - it's an enabling step which will lead to further erosion of automomy. Some on here seem either determined to ignore this, or have a somewhat naive trust in the current and future governments.

I can see that but then to me it seems naïve to think that any authoritarian regime would even be slowed down by the lack of one database if they did decide to lock people up or whatever other horrible thing they intended.

 

[AlterEgo]

A centralised ID system is a step which enables far more authoritarianism and surveillance in future. This is the issue with it - it's an enabling step which will lead to further erosion of automomy. Some on here seem either determined to ignore this, or have a somewhat naive trust in the current and future governments.

How does it do this?

As I mentioned earlier in the thread: Right now, the police know where I live, they know where I bank, they know what car I drive and which cameras it has passed today, they know my passport number, they know which masts my phone has pinged, they know my wife's name, they know I'm booked on a flight out of the country on Friday.

What erosion of autonomy do you think I have suffered here and what additional erosion of the same does a Digital ID present? You already live in a society where you have to prove who you are to interact with the state, receive its benefits and securities, vote, get a job, open a bank account, pretty much do anything which would mean you can participate properly. You live in a "papers please" society already - with actual paper, in many respects.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

How does it do this?

As I mentioned earlier in the thread: Right now, the police know where I live, they know where I bank, they know what car I drive and which cameras it has passed today, they know my passport number, they know which masts my phone has pinged, they know my wife's name, they know I'm booked on a flight out of the country on Friday.

What erosion of autonomy do you think I have suffered here and what additional erosion of the same does a Digital ID present? You already live in a society where you have to prove who you are to interact with the state, receive its benefits and securities, vote, get a job, open a bank account, pretty much do anything which would mean you can participate properly. You live in a "papers please" society already - with actual paper, in many respects.

It allows centralisation of all that data with one reference, making it much easier to access. While a lot of the information might be available already, it's generally going to be too much effort to aggregate it all unless they have a particular reason to do so. With it all linked to a central ID, that becomes much easier.

It also forms a basis for the linking of whatever further data which they might decide to collect in the future.

As regards the level of surveillance already in place, yes it is a problem - but as I have already replied when this point was raised earlier in this thread, we are where we are and the best that can realistically be hoped for is to prevent further expansion.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

As I mentioned earlier in the thread: Right now, the police know where I live, they know where I bank, they know what car I drive and which cameras it has passed today, they know my passport number, they know which masts my phone has pinged, they know my wife's name, they know I'm booked on a flight out of the country on Friday.

Point of order! Not really - in order to obtain this data ("Cell Site Analysis") they need to submit a properly justified request under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to the operator, which needs to be authorised by a Senior Officer and signed by a Magistrate. It's not information that's readily available on a day-to-day basis.

 

[Tester]

Point of order! Not really - in order to obtain this data ("Cell Site Analysis") they need to submit a properly justified request under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to the operator, which needs to be authorised by a Senior Officer and signed by a Magistrate. It's not information that's readily available on a day-to-day basis.

Which means that the information is available.

How accessible that information (or any other information) is is a completely different matter from whether it is a good idea to have a 'one stop ' ID system (which is what we are talking about).

The fundamental problem is a lack of trust in government to do the right thing, and I for one don't know how to fix that!

 

[Cdd89]

What theoretical harm is present with digital ID which isn't theoretically present now?

From my perspective, the risk is that a future government decides to make carrying it / showing it on-demand mandatory. This is not an argument against the ID Card but it is obviously a lot harder for this change to happen if the ID system does not exist in the first place, and a lot easier if it's on a device that people already carry with them everywhere.

Mandatory carry-and-show ID would have a lot of potential advantages for society, including immigration enforcement, catching people with outstanding arrest warrants, etc. However I do not view those advantages as being worth the fundamental shift in our relationship with the state, and I view the harm as being so great that I would prefer for the infrastructure not to exist.

Without wishing to derail this thread back onto Covid (!), it's highly likely that the Vaccine Passport system in 2021 would have been linked to the digital ID system. Between this, and the fact the government required venues to check it, a scenario where showing digital ID would have been mandated by the government has already happened.

I agree with other posters that none of these things are problems if you trust the state and the government - which (from your posts) you clearly do. It does however mean that the discussion is somewhat at cross purposes since sonceone who trusts the state will never be persuaded against ID cards, whereas someone who does not trust the state will never be persuaded in favour of them.

 

[AlterEgo]

I agree with other posters that none of these things are problems if you trust the state and the government - which (from your posts) you clearly do. It does however mean that the discussion is somewhat at cross purposes since sonceone who trusts the state will never be persuaded against ID cards, whereas someone who does not trust the state will never be persuaded in favour of them.

I do not trust the government. My family has suffered extreme negative consequences at the hands of the British government due to the unlawful killing of a relative - who was doing nothing wrong - by an agent of the state. As a result of that, and having attended the inquest and heard evidence from people within the British state, I am deeply suspicious of the state and its machinations. It's a gross simplification to say the debate is between people who trust the government and people who don't.

The history of scandal in the modern British state is not one wrapped up in top-level conspiracy but rather by indifference, cockup, and brushing incompetence and wrongdoing under the carpet. Ask the people who were caught up in the Windrush scandal whether the state should have more ironclad ways of figuring out who is who and which people are lawfully present and which aren't.

I think I would trust the government and its institutions more if I was able to interact with them reliably and be sure they had a proper record of me. I routinely carry ID with me and do not have a problem doing so - because I *don't* trust the state and I *don't* trust the police as much as I'd like to, and if something happens I would like to be able to easily prove who I am. I think Digital ID gives an opportunity to extend this trust to other agencies. This country runs on incompetence and fudge; I find it an irritant and do not consider Digital ID to be some sort of gross overstep. It works in other liberal democracies fine.

I feel that if the photocard driving licence was introduced today some people would find ways to oppose it:
"they could make carrying it mandatory"
"you get a provisional one anyway and they could just make everyone have one even if they'd never passed their test"
"I don't like that it has a photo of me"
"what if 50 million records of adults' personal details got hacked, databases aren't secure"
"why does my address need to be on it by law if it is just a badge to say I can drive"
etc etc etc

 

[Bikeman78]

There is no logic or any implication; I am pointing out that the exact same objections were raised with Blair's 2006 Act, which ended up being binned. This actually supports the side of the sceptic.

Opposition to ID cards is a theme running through the British political ideal and the reasons for that opposition have not changed much over time. The idea this is novel because of covid may be true for some people but in the aggregate probably doesn't turn the dial much. If covid had never happened there would still be basically the same level of opposition.

I think one problem was that in 2006, people didn't trust Tony Blair any more. All the war on terror and weapons of mass destruction business, to name two examples. As for the Covid era, it was a strange time. On the one hand, the government revealed how far it was willing to go to try and force people into compliance. On the other hand, during that time I realised how easy it is to ignore the rules and do what I like. Enforcement is close to zero.

As regards ID cards, I don't really care either way. If it happens, it happens. The government will do what it wants, unless they get voted out first.

 

[uglymonkey]

I expect they'd also find a way to ensure that drivers of luxury and performance cars don't have to pay too much more than someone driving a efficient A-segment car.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Nov 2025 ==



As I've said before, if you're representing the wealthy elite - which is maybe a couple of percent of the national population - you are never going to get the votes needed to take power and give all those nice tax breaks, as well as getting rid of regulations (and, like with DOGE, getting rid of the regulators too).

So you need to act like you represent the people, which basically means you become a populist and tell gullible people what they want to hear. Making a group of people become scapegoats for all the issues the working class suffer daily is not exactly a new trick! It works time and time again.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Nov 2025 ==



Over the years, other parties have been pro ID cards - but all of a sudden they're coming out against them when Labour suggested doing it. I can't cite anything but I'm pretty sure Reform (or UKIP) had suggested ID cards in the past.

I am pretty certain every party is pro ID cards behind closed doors.

We all speak of using passports or driving licences for ID, but people aren't necessarily going to have either, so the idea of a recognised ID card isn't a terrible idea. They work fine in many other countries and they haven't become police states. Of course, there's a big difference in having a secure method of proving your identity when you need to prove who you are, and being stopped on the street and made to 'show your papers'.

Why should I have to show an id card in demand? Why. What is the benefit to me?

 

[RT4038]

Why should I have to show an id card in demand? Why. What is the benefit to me?

Once the necessary laws have been enacted, the main benefit for you will be to prevent you being arrested and prosecuted for failing to produce it.

 

[87electric]

Once the necessary laws have been enacted, the main benefit for you will be to prevent you being arrested and prosecuted for failing to produce it.

I’m looking forward to that benefit to improve my life.

 

[jon0844]

Why should I have to show an id card in demand? Why. What is the benefit to me?

If you read what I said, it was that a recognised card that could serve as secure ID if you don't have a passport or drivers licence.

It could help prevent all sorts of fraud when applying for loans, mortgages, opening accounts and so on.

I don't see why you'd need to carry one for any other reason.

 

[FinsburyPark]

So as I have mentioned before I am anti the idea of Digital ID cards, and proudly so.

However as a dual citizen of the EU I am definately not anti the idea of ID cards wholesale and actively support the idea of an EU style ID card (under a voluntary scheme) for Britons who want one.

I even made one of those government petitions asking for this

Petition: Create a voluntary physical national ID card

With the advent of the up and coming EES system in Europe, we are asking for a Government ID card system similar to current EU member state ID cards.

petition.parliament.uk

 

[Brush 4]

As for preventing expansion of surveillance....... it's coming anyway.

The UK government has kicked off plans to ramp up police use of facial recognition, undeterred by a mounting civil liberties backlash and fresh warnings that any expansion risks turning public spaces into biometric dragnets.

UK cops to scale facial recognition despite privacy backlash

: Plan would create statutory powers for police use of biometrics, prompting warnings of mass surveillance

www.theregister.com