> As I understand it, you still need to identify yourself in countries without such an id, like the US or UK, for a lot of reasons, like when opening bank accou

> As I understand it, you still need to identify yourself in countries without such an id, like the US or UK, for a lot of reasons, like when opening bank accounts, interacting with the state, etc. But without a national id card, this can become complicated, and these countries often use a lot of defacto ids "replacements" like birth certificates, driver's licenses and so on, which increases the bureaucracy for citizens/customers and potential for fraud. There is a big difference between having it being compulsory to carry identification and being required to show identification when my identification need to be verified. When I am buying my lunch. I don't need to verify who I am. If I am going to the bank they need to verify who I am. > So while I see a lot of pros about national ids, what's the "horrid" drawback of ids? Because I shouldn't need be required to carry a piece of paper/plastic card to go outside of my house. The idea of it is bonkers if you are in the UK. If the identification isn't compulsory and is voluntary I have no problem with them. However from what I understand many places in Europe they are compulsory.