43 ms·

Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

• reorder9695 1y ago
  I am not going to download an app to work. If they need some form of ID they can provide me a physical one, oh wait that sounds like an NI number. What's the point of this again?
• burnt-resistor 1y ago
  Kafkaesque doesn't mean that much anymore when reality is far darker.
  • AfterHIA 1y ago
    Andy French and I applaud you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3H_peKI6R0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3H_peKI6R0
• add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
  Do they not already have the equivalent of a US social security card? (For the employment eligibility, not the program benefits.) Is this something much different from that?
  • xixixao 1y ago
    They have a couple “numbers”, but not a id “card” besides a passport (which only citizens get, not permanent residents). ID cards are pretty standard across EU.
    • throwawaydjdu 1y ago
      [dead]
  • throwawaydjdu 1y ago
    [dead]
  • dghlsakjg 1y ago
    You aren't required to show your social security card to your employer. You aren't even required to have the physical card for almost all purposes. It specifically says on the card, and in other places that it is not to be used for identification. https://www.ssa.gov/ssnumber/assets/EN-05-10553.pdf https://www.ssa.gov/ssnumber/assets/EN-05-10553.pdf
    • Terr_ 1y ago
      > It specifically says on the card, and in other places that it is not to be used for identification. The US tried that back when Social Security Numbers were introduced. It specifically said it was for tax-purposes (a context where it might've been adequately-secure) and not to be used for anything else. Yet without any actual penalties against "other places", it got misused everywhere by companies trying to save a buck on primary-key choice and authenticating people.
    • boredatoms 1y ago
      Its the I-9 thats required, the SSN card is just one way to satisfy that
  • arrowsmith 1y ago
    We have a “national insurance number” used for tax purposes but it’s just a number that you fill in in forms; no-one asks to see the cards. I’m not sure they even issue the physical cards anymore? I lost mine a long time ago.
• lvturner 1y ago
  Having just paid a small fortune to renew my passport. I'm not super excited about this, especially as I live outside the UK. I also don't trust them not to make a complete hash of all this, removing all potential utility while simultaneously increasing the chances of my ID being stolen. sigh
  • elcritch 1y ago
    As an American it seems to me that the UK government insists on finding a way to upset all sides on any given issue like illegal immigration. If anything it's the singular and unique skill of Whitehall.
    • 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
      A good compromise leaves everyone mad.
      • JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        A good compromise leaves everyone dissatisfied. A bad deal leaves everyone mad.
        • frollogaston 1y ago
          like IPv6
          • fruitworks 1y ago
            whats wrong with ipv6? other than square brackets
            • frollogaston 1y ago
              Everything except for the part where the address space is bigger. We got a halfway migration now that everyone is angry about.
• digianarchist 1y ago
  If it's only applicable to citizens then how do they hope it will help on migration? Edit: The Times says this is to include all workers: https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/digital-id-compulsory-keir-starmer-plan-0n8vmp293 https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/digital-id-comp...
  • OhMeadhbh 1y ago
    When the cops stop you on the street and ask for your digital ID and you can't show it to them, they'll take you to a deportation center. #PapersPlease
    • laurieg 1y ago
      This is how things work in Japan. If you are not a Japanese citizen then the police can ask to see your residence card to confirm your status.
    • carlosjobim 1y ago
      From Wikipedia: "Tourism in the United Kingdom is a major industry and contributor to the U.K. economy, which is the world's 10th biggest tourist destination, with over 40.1 million visiting in 2019, contributing a total of £234 billion to the GDP"
      • OhMeadhbh 1y ago
        Like the US, I think there are multiple interest groups, not all of whom are interested in seeing "aliens" on British streets. I was named a "Highly Skilled Migrant" by Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and paid a fair amount of money to the University of Liverpool and yet, never got the feeling I was in any way anything other than a foreigner.
  • Broken_Hippo 1y ago
    The same way other things "help" migration. By making life very difficult for you if you aren't a proper citizen. I imagine the outcome for this would be to make it nearly impossible to do anything with the government or doing anything you might need an ID for, especially online. Some citizens will probably suffer too, but it is a price the government is willing to pay.
• throwawaydjdu 1y ago
  Reminder that the UK arrests 12000/year for online posts, by far the most in the West. The UK already has government issued ID, the proof of age card. This is about tying your identity to your online behaviour.
  • steve_taylor 1y ago
    My prediction is that it will soon be a requirement for all websites and apps with user-generated content to require authentication with the UK government's Digital ID OAuth provider and that requirement will include linking the user's username to their Digital ID. It won't require websites and apps to pay a third-party provider to check users' identity, so the UK government can argue that it doesn't place a disproportionately burdensome cost on smaller websites and apps. After the UK implements this, other western countries will follow. For example, here in Australia, it's a simple solution to the under-16 social media ban which is about to come into effect. The bill was given deliberately weak verification requirements so it didn't seem too big-brother, but I'd bet real money that there's already an amendment in the works to tie it to digital ID after they discover what everyone already knows (i.e. that it'll be easily bypassed), followed by another amendment to tie the digital ID to site/app ID, for online safety reasons of course. In time, websites/apps may offer your government's digital ID as an alternative to their in-house identity provider. If this becomes globally ubiquitous, many of them will stop maintaining their own authentication and rely solely on government ID providers. The identity provider you use will depend on where you are, so VPNs will become useless. This was all inevitable from the day the internet opened up to everyone. Governments have an insatiable desire for power and limitless paranoia about threats to their power.
    • palmfacehn 1y ago
      I remember when the Internet was celebrated as decentralized media, allowing common citizens to criticize repressive regimes. Today it seems like the west is emulating the countermeasures already perfected by those repressive regimes.
    • sjapkee 1y ago
      Internet peaked too early to build any countermeasures for this.
• isodev 1y ago
  I’ve always lived in places where having an ID on you has been part of your “citizen responsibilities”. So reading the post my feeling was “oh cool, they’re getting a new eID-like system”. But I imagine it’s a huge step if folks could get by without an ID at all.
  • Nursie 1y ago
    In the UK it has never been compulsory to carry ID, even when driving. At a traffic stop the police have the option to require you to present documents at a police station within seven days if they think something is fishy. And people do seem to exist quite happily without formal identification. As someone who has always had a passport and driving license it was a bit of an eye-opener to me, but if you don't drive and don't travel, some folks just get by without. So if there is a requirement to have a Britcard, and to present your 'Britcard' when stopped for any reason, then it is definitely a change.
    • userbinator 1y ago
      That is very surprising. In the US, you are legally required to carry your license when driving. If you are caught driving without one, expect to be arrested.
      • kimixa 1y ago
        Also the US reserves the right to demand ID if you're within 100 miles of a border - which is effectively 2/3 of the population. And detain you until your status can be "verified", however long that could take. That should only be for non-citizens, but I have no idea how you could prove that without documentation in the first place. So for the vast majority of Americans, you probably have to be carrying ID at all times anyway, else you risk someone deciding you "might" not actually be a citizen. If this same rule was enacted in the UK, there would be no place on the British Isles that would be excluded, as nowhere is more than 100 miles from the coast.
        • touristtam 1y ago
• steanne 1y ago
  didn't they try that 20 years ago and repeal? and back then it was voluntary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_Cards_Act_2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_Cards_Act_2006
  • Nursie 1y ago
    There was a big backlash and they eventually caved in and cancelled the scheme when the government changed. I lived in South London at the time and sent a letter to my MP to protest about the creation of a database state and increased surveillance, fundamentally changing the nature of the relationship between the citizen and the state. About two months later I got a form response that started "Don't worry, it's not just an ID card, there will be a huge database behind it!" Thanks. Way to show you didn't even read what I wrote. I think in the intervening years that relationship has already fundamentally changed though. Privacy from government in most western countries seems to be something of a fading memory, it would be hard to make those same arguments in 2025.
    • globular-toast 1y ago
      The MPs never read anything. You got sent back one of a few pre-written replies by a secretary. I was stupid enough to reply to one of those replies once and never got anything back.
      • Nursie 1y ago
        Yeah that’s the conclusion I came to as well. It’s really saddening when it’s shoved in your face like that.
• helsinkiandrew 1y ago
  This appears to just be an extension (in free app form) of the UK government “One Login” system used to get access to most government web services. This currently has about 12 million users. https://www.gov.uk/using-your-gov-uk-one-login https://www.gov.uk/using-your-gov-uk-one-login https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/25/keir-starmer-expected-to-announce-plans-for-digital-id-cards https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/25/keir-starme...
• mastazi 1y ago
  I'm not clear if this is digital ONLY or if I people can choose to carry a physical card when required, instead of a smartphone. If it's the former, then it means it's now mandatory for all British citizens to become customers of the Google/Apple duopoly LOL
  • mrob 1y ago
    And "become customers" means it will become mandatory to sign away your rights to a foreign corporation by agreeing to their terms of service. This kind of abuse of power is a clear example of why the UK needs a real constitution.
    • pbhjpbhj 1y ago
      The UK has a real constitution. A central side of it is HRA 1998 which Tory/Reform want to do away with because it curtails power of government.
      • mrob 1y ago
        A real constitution is not a vague collection of traditions. Every other country understands "constitution" to mean a written document. A collection of traditions cannot meet the primary aim of a constitution, which is granting people clear and unambiguous rights. Furthermore, a constitution is generally more difficult to change than a law. The Human Rights Act can be repealed by a simple majority of MPs voting to repeal it.
    • LinAGKar 1y ago
      And if Google bans you for some reason (which they have been known to do sometimes), I guess you'll be kicked out of the country unless you buy an iPhone.
      • LinAGKar 1y ago
        Well, maybe the app will keep working and you can update it from Aurora Store, or maybe you'll be fine as long as you don't change your employment or residence. Pretty vague so far.
• remarkEon 1y ago
  >The proposals are the government's latest bid to tackle illegal immigration, with the new ID being a form of proof of a citizen's right to live and work in the UK. How does a digital ID solve an illegal immigration problem? I watched the video and the suggestion is that this makes it easier for employers to verify that someone is authorized to work. Is that actually true? I don't live in the UK and have not visited in several years. If the idea is that a digital ID authorizes employment ... well I hope people can see the problem, here.
  • jesterson 1y ago
    [flagged]
  • Insanity 1y ago
    In all fairness, the “immigration” story is likely just a convenient spin on a more realistic goal of state surveillance on it’s own citizens.
    • Nursie 1y ago
      While there is almost guaranteed to be an aspect of this, the UK is going through a period where immigration is in the news constantly and the populist party "Reform UK" are on the rise. The Labour government has realised that whatever their own feelings are about people coming to the UK by irregular means and claiming asylum, they need to be seen to recognise the popular narrative right now that the boats must be stopped, and be seen to be taking action. So I don't think the immediate state goal right here is likely to be anything deeper than desperately trying to head off Nigel Farage, who is capturing a lot of public discourse about this 'crisis'.
      • pixxel 1y ago
        [dead]
      • gmac 1y ago
        … except that trying to out-Farage Farage (by being bastards to asylum seekers) will lose them many of their traditional supporters (who are not big on being bastards to asylum seekers) and seems unlikely to gain them many Farage supporters (why would they take some half-hearted populist bastardry when they can have the real deal?). The ‘small boats’ narrative is ludicrously over-reported here. It’s such a clear case of those with most of the resources scapegoating those with none of the resources as the cause of everyone else’s problems.
• OgsyedIE 1y ago
  So this applies to sectarian areas of Northern Ireland as well as every other part of the UK, then.
  • petesergeant 1y ago
    You appear to have buried the point you’re trying to make here
    • dmoo 1y ago
      Absolutely, calling it a ‘Brit’ card will make it wildly unpopular in certain areas let alone the headaches in terms of the common travel area and the Good Friday agreement.
    • lawlessone 1y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement#:~:text=Article%201%20(vi)%2C%20commonly,to%20hold%20both%20British%20and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement#:~:text=... >Article 1 (vi), commonly referred to as the birthright provisions, states that both governments, "Recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish, or British, or both
      • petesergeant 1y ago
        The card doesn’t say you _are_ British though?
• waltercool 1y ago
  [dead]
• jauntywundrkind 1y ago
  It's just so frakking disappointing for a there to finally be a huge labor landslide in 2024 then for their leaders to turn around and be ongoingly in bed just the same with right wing fascism. There was such a clear mandate for something different something better something good, and it's such a stark betrayal, such a vile repudiation than republicanism is ever going to be acceptable to see such a mass betrayal such a hard sell out. To Palantir grade fascist information overloading control that Kier would commit to. Ugly gross time line of no good. One would kind of hope winning elections might meet something better than right wing fascist over-control, but no, not here. Disgraceful.
  • monsecchris 1y ago
    Right wing are against this.
• jameslk 1y ago
  Finally, a digital form of “papers, please”
  • mikelward 1y ago
    Glory to Arstotzka.
• m2f2 1y ago
  I just wonder how widespread fraud is without any form of ID. A fake utility bill is just a few clicks away on my PC. Govt surveillance? I'm much more worried by the ever increasing number of cameras in the streets rather than something similar to having a passport to prove who you really are.
• andyjohnson0 1y ago
  I didn't watch the video, but have read other reports, and it's worth noting that the context for this is the Labour Party conference, which starts on Sunday. The UK govt are under pressure from the tories and Reform to do something about people entering the UK from France by crossing the channel in small boats. Nothing much seems to be working. So this announcement is about trying to control the narrative by making a big, distracting announcement. I'd mlbe surprised if many people in the government/police/civil service expect it to make a difference. Also, seems to be intended to be mandatory and require a smartphone. Hows that going to work? Also, what happens when the database is inevitably stolen?
  • arrowsmith 1y ago
    “Nothing much seems to be working” because the government is completely unserious about stopping the boats and is unwilling to do any of the things that might actually work. They could stop them in a week if they actually wanted to.
    • bxsioshc 1y ago
      [dead]
    • hdgvhicv 1y ago
      The larger problem is 10 times as many arrive via Heathrow. That’s what causes the pressure on local services, from housing to GPs to transport.
    • pbhjpbhj 1y ago
      Legally and morally? What is your solution?
      • arrowsmith 1y ago
        Stick them in processing centres until they can be deported. Send a clear message to anyone who might come that it won't work, you won't get in, we won't give you anything, don't risk your life or waste your money. Australia did exactly this (in the face of howling opposition) and it worked: illegal boat arrivals dropped from ~20,000 per year to almost zero. Thousands of people used to drown attempting the crossing, now no-one drowns. There's your moral case. Legally, Parliament is sovereign. If the current legal framework doesn't allow it, change the law. Except they won't, because they don't want to solve the problem and they use the law as an excuse as if they aren't the fucking government.
• mrob 1y ago
  It's incredibly misleading to call a phone app a "card". This is much worse than it sounds. Am I going to be forced to buy a smartphone? Am I going to be forced to run non-Free software? Am I going to be forced to enter into a restrictive contract with a foreign corporation?
  • octo888 1y ago
    Hah this is the UK. No, it'll be optional to begin with to make people like you asking important questions seem like a whacko. Then once they use propaganda to make people opt into it, and it reaches mass adoption, then it'll quietly be made mandatory - or extremely annoying not to have it
    • LinAGKar 1y ago
      No, it will be mandatory right from the start, and employers will be required to check it https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/digital-id-card-uk-what-starmer-labour-immigrants-b2834064.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/digital-id-ca...
      • octo888 1y ago
        Are you suggesting they will draft the law in such a way that in order not to be fired people must download this thing onto a smartphone and show it to their employer, post-haste? Your link does not support any evidence of that (the line " will be mandatory for every worker in the UK" links to just another one of their own articles, which also does not support it). I imagine it'll be phased in for new employment. No, it won't be mandatory in all situations all at once, for every facet of life (I did not specify employment).
    • kypro 1y ago
      Yep. It's literally always this way. It's starts with "we hope everyone will do the right thing". To, "it's concerning some people are refusing to do their part". To finally, "do it now or we'll lock you in a cage".
• madaxe_again 1y ago
  Headline (here and on Sky) is clickbait - should read that this is a PROPOSAL. This is a proposal at a party conference, not law. Previous initiatives along these lines have not come to pass, and this is unlikely to as well. Expect universal rejection by the tories, lib dems and reform in parliament, purely because it’s a Labour initiative, and expect plenty of Labour MPs to disobey the whip. From the BBC this morning: “Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch calls it a "desperate gimmick", while the Lib Dems fear it would force people to turn over their private data” If it does somehow get beyond the commons, expect lords to quash it. I give this about a 20% chance of actually coming to pass.
• bumseltagbaerbi 1y ago
  Vote Labour respectively a "people's worker party", get this.
  • pbhjpbhj 1y ago
    ID cards were already brought in under Labour about 20 years ago - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10164331 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10164331. They would have allowed EU travel without a passport, but sadly didn't take off. Initially they would have incorporated driving licenses too - lots of people already carry a driver's license. Ironically I've of the reasons for not having them, back in the noughties, was because it would target minorities. Now, the right wing are beying for blood over immigration, national IDs do seems like they would reduce the ability of illegal immigrants to work/collect benefits. Tories left a massive immigration problem, exacerbated by Brexit.
• gorgoiler 1y ago
  I hope the card will include an asymmetric digital signature from a government authority. That way, concerned members of the public will be able to verify anyone else’s Brit Card. This would in turn enable citizen-operated checkpoints to verify the Britishness of food delivery drivers, mosque worshipers, suspected pedos, anyone who smells a bit too much like curry or garlic, or blokes what look funny like they aint from round ere. Marvellous! /s
• r0ckarong 1y ago
  Gotta track those breadlines
• zkmon 1y ago
  Reminds me a scene in "Friends" - people boarding an airplane asking the crew "Did you fix the issue of missing Falange?"; "Yes sir, we fixed it!"
• panny 1y ago
  >Create problem >Provide "solution" A story as old as time.
• arrowsmith 1y ago
  Digital IDs will be used to restrict your internet access. They'll roll them out gradually. You won't need one at first. You'll still show your passport, driving license etc, until one day you give up because the digital version is convenient and you "might as well". What's your problem? Why do you care? Have you got something to hide? Then they'll attack the easiest target: porn. We already have age-verification laws, implemented through dodgy third-party providers. But now everyone has digital government ID: we "might as well" unify things so all the porn sites check your age using the centralised government system. What's your problem? Why do you care? Won't you THINK OF THE CHILDREN??? You want to let CHILDREN watch PORN??? Then comes online retail. After all, the Southport killer bought his knife from Amazon — that was the front page headline on every paper, remember how organic and uncoordinated that was? It could all have been avoided with better age verification. And hey, we already have a way to verify age with our digital IDs. We "might as well". What's your problem? Why do you care? You want to let CHILDREN buy KNIVES? And what about social media? Kids shouldn't use Facebook, it's bad for them. Australia already bans under 16s from social media. We already have age verification for other things. We "might as well". WHY DO YOU CARE????? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! Oh, that's handy, everyone's social media accounts are now tied to their real identities. That'll come in handy when people say nasty things that the government doesn't like. After all, those riots only happened because of "misinformation". Why do you need to stay anonymous anyway? What's the problem? Why do you care? Got something to hide? You're in favour of HATE SPEECH?? The slippery slope has never been more lubricated.
  • ghusto 1y ago
    That all sounds plausible, but why doesn't it happen in other EU countries where digital ID is required?
    • wartywhoa23 1y ago
      Because one has to timelapse things in order to perceive the advances of incrementalism
• xyzzy3000 1y ago
  The petition against this has so far managed to surpass the one opposing online age verification: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • aftergibson 1y ago
    I look forward to Parliament’s long-worded “no.” These petitions often seem more about managing dissent than enabling meaningful change.
• tim333 1y ago
  Presenter: >digital id will be made mandatory for all adults in an effort to tackle small boats WTF? It's obvious when a small boat of Africans turns up they are not Brits and making Brits carry ID will make zero difference there.
• tempodox 1y ago
  One step closer to 24/7 total surveillance. Once this is established, they’ll make it mandatory for using web sites, chat apps, etc…
• jjgreen 1y ago
  Before the election I was approached by a bubbly young woman who tried to persuade me to vote Labour: "No thanks, last time I did that they tried to introduce ID cards", "But that's not in our manifesto" she replied, "It wasn't the last time I voted for them either". It gives me no pleasure to be right on this.
  • celticninja 1y ago
    Could you explain what it is you find so distasteful about ID cards? I mean if you have a passport then you already have an 'ID card', but I certainly don't want to take that out with me to prove my age.
    • jjgreen 1y ago
      Could you please give me your real name "celticninja", your phone number, your address, your NI number -- oh, and you'll need to install this app on your phone which I promise will never be used to monitor your location, purchases, friends. Then I'll explain.
      • gadders 1y ago
        Also, please authenticate with your digital ID before posting on social media.
        • tempodox 1y ago
          Not even a joke, but only a question of time.
        • tedk-42 1y ago
          And we never heard from then again. Case in point of how someone likes something in theory but in practice it's distasteful.
        • celticninja 1y ago
          That is not a requirement though. And if it came in I would be against it. So what is your point?
• platipusiton 1y ago
  What the hell is with these overly-draconian bills prioritizing control over individual rights being passed as of late?! The online safety act & now this. Our private right to anonymity & privacy has utterly gone out the window at this point...
  • celticninja 1y ago
    I don't think this is on a par with the online safety act. That was fundamentally flawed. This isn't a huge issue and the benefits for ease of access to government services is a positive step. One thing that users of government services face is the need to provide documentation that supports their request. This can be an impediment to users accessing services that they are entitled to in a timely manner. The biggest risk is from a data breach and this information being accessed by unauthorized parties, but that is something all online services are at risk from. The absolute worst way to implement this will be to contract it out to a third party. If it is built and maintained by civil servant developers who have already proved their mettle with a variety of govuk services then I would have confidence in it. If it is farmed out to Fujitsu or some other 3rd party then it will be an shithshow and an expensive one at that.
    • jjgreen 1y ago
      It will be fine https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366631525/Our-worst-day-The-untold-story-of-the-Electoral-Commission-cyber-attack https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366631525/Our-worst-day-...
    • platipusiton 1y ago
      What’s the point of easier access if it comes at the cost of our rights? The potential for BritCard to be used for surveillance outweighs the benefits of convenience tenfold... Privacy is not something we should compromise for easier access to services- what starts as a way to "streamline services" can quickly turn into a horrible mechanism for tracking citizens under the guise of security..
    • drcongo 1y ago
      It'll be handed to Palantir. Starmer has run out of things to sell off to billionaires and the only reason this bill exists is so he can sell off the actual citizens too.
• mytailorisrich 1y ago
  This is a plan so we shall see what happens... This is widely unpopular because the idea of ID cards is unpopular in general in the UK and the people also clearly understand that the argument that this would combat illegal immigration is total rubbish. Even the comments on The Guardian's website are overwhelmingly negative, which should really tell the government something. The proposal is also drastic because it would be de facto mandatory for all residents. It's hilarious and pathetic to see the government argue that it wouldn't be mandatory, just only needed to get a job (which probably means also mandatory to rent and to study)... An unpopular government trying to out-do itself.
  • celticninja 1y ago
    [flagged]
    • mytailorisrich 1y ago
      > What it will combat is illegal immigrants ability to work. No. That's a rubbish claim by the government. Employers must already check right to work and it is straightforward. Penalties are unlimited fines and jail, with penalties of 40k+ dished out on the first offence.
      • celticninja 1y ago
        It is easily gamed and it requires providing documents, usually these are photos or reproductions of passports which are provided digitally and can be easily altered. And employers don't have the skill or ability to detect them, or often the will to investigate.. by having copies of the documents they can show they did what was required and claim to have been misled and they are the victims, so no prosecution or fines.
        • mytailorisrich 1y ago
          That's not how it works and it is not easily gamed. You must provide your original passport, not a copy. And if you are a foreigner you must also provide a "share code" that allows the employer to go to the Home Office's website and check you details, including picture, and entitlement to live/work/study in the country. Again, if some employers are unscrupulous, or just plain idiots, ID cards won't change that. > by having copies of the documents they can show they did what was required and claim to have been misled and they are the victims, so no prosecution or fines. On the contrary, this means 40k fine.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• zahllos 1y ago
  One of my concerns with this is the assumption that every adult has a suitable smartphone. Do the government plan to hand them out?
  • GJim 1y ago
    A smartphone running software beholden to one of two American companies. Do you see the flaw here!
  • pjc50 1y ago
    A smartphone is going to be mandatory for employment!
  • paperpunk 1y ago
    From the linked page: > In designing the digital ID scheme, the government will ensure that it works for those who aren’t able to use a smartphone, with inclusion at the heart of its design.
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    • brianmcc 1y ago
      The technologically inept get QR codes tattooed on their foreheads.
      • sharperguy 1y ago
        It won't fit on my head next to my POOR IMPULSE CONTROL tattoo.
      • zahllos 1y ago
        Please don't give them ideas!
    • zahllos 1y ago
      I guess we'll have to wait for specifics. Unfortunately "it will have inclusion at its core" doesn't really say much. They are considering enabling its use for more than just work, so what happens when my grandma forgets to charge her phone before her doctors' appointment? What happens if you want to give teenagers a dumb phone because you as a parent decide a smartphone isn't appropriate, but they need the ID for the NHS too?
• aftergibson 1y ago
  A secure, optional digital ID could be useful. But not in today’s UK. Why? Because the state has already shown it can’t be trusted with our data. - Snoopers’ Charter (Investigatory Powers Act 2016): ISPs must keep a year’s worth of records of which websites you visit. More than 40 agencies—from MI5 to the Welsh Ambulance Service—can request it. MI5 has already broken the rules and kept data it shouldn’t have. - Encryption backdoors: Ministers can issue “Technical Capability Notices” to force tech firms to weaken or bypass end-to-end encryption. - Online Safety Act: Expands content-scanning powers that experts warn could undermine privacy for everyone. - Palantir deals: The government has given £1.5 billion+ in contracts to a US surveillance firm that builds predictive-policing tools and runs the NHS’s new Federated Data Platform. Many of those deals are secret. - Wall-to-wall cameras: Millions of CCTV cameras already make the UK one of the most surveilled countries in the world. A universal digital ID would plug straight into this ecosystem, creating an always-on, uniquely identified record of where you go and what you do. Even if paper or card options exist on paper, smartphone-based systems will dominate in practice, leaving those without phones excluded or coerced. I’m not against digital identity in principle. But until the UK government proves it can protect basic privacy—by rolling back mass data retention, ending encryption backdoor demands, and enforcing genuine oversight—any national digital ID is a surveillance power-grab waiting to happen. I'm certain it's worked well in other countries, but I have zero trust in the UK government to handle this responsibility.
  • octo888 1y ago
    Very well said
  • ghusto 1y ago
    Was reading through your post, finding it difficult to find fault with anything you were saying, but something wasn't sitting right. And then ... > I'm certain it's worked well in other countries It has! In the Netherlands for example, it's just an incredibly convenient system, and if there's anything dodgy going on I'm not aware of it. So what makes the UK so different to the Netherlands? Genuine question, because I really don't know. My only guess is that the people of the Netherlands hold their politicians to account, whereas nothing ever seems to happen to UK politicians whose corruption is so severe that they're sometimes literally criminal.
• pjc50 1y ago
  > There will be no requirement for individuals to carry their ID or be asked to produce it - but digital ID will be mandatory as a means of proving your Right to Work. So it's mandatory for everyone except old people and the unemployed. It will almost certainly also be mandatory for renting, which has the same check. Then it will gradually seep into everything else: benefits and pensions, to cover the categories not initially covered. Then police spot checks and ICE sweeps.
  • GJim 1y ago
    > and ICE sweeps Sorry old boy, but what have the *UK* Institute of Civil Engineers got to do with this?
    • pjc50 1y ago
      Using the name of the US body to associate it with the immigration sweeps carried out in an abusive manner; the corresponding UK immigration raids are currently the responsibility of the Home Office.
      • mc32 1y ago
        Presumably they have their own British acronym and don’t need to borrow one from the US.
    • mc32 1y ago
      The best way to win an argument is to mix and unrelated match facts… I mean, unless someone notices…
      • ratelimitsteve 1y ago
        okay but the best way to win a tennis match is to score an unrelated match point
  • KaiserPro 1y ago
    This isn't the USA, ICE doesn't exist here. We have the border force, and they aren't allowed to cover their faces, yet. But to your point, its required to have some sort of ID for renting, job or voting _already_ the difference here is there is a digital version of it. The other thing is that driving licenses are also ID, that carry a £10k fine for not keeping your address up to date.
• octo888 1y ago
  "Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said ID cards were not in the party's election manifesto and added: "That’s not our approach."" – July 2024 "Asked about the possibility of introducing digital ID cards, Mr Reynolds [then Secretary of State for Business and Trade, now Chief Whip] told Times Radio: "We can rule that out, that's not something that's part of our plans."" – July 2024 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c87rgj4e0rzo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c87rgj4e0rzo
  • rglynn 1y ago
    And yet people still stare blankly when you explain that the civil service and cronies run the country, not the politicians.
• mellosouls 1y ago
  There will be no requirement for individuals to carry their ID or be asked to produce it Yet.
  • dabeeeenster 1y ago
    This will never happen in the UK.
    • hn_throw2025 1y ago
      Nice crystal ball you have there. There's a lot of resistance to this because people can see this is the big pill they want you to swallow. Then smaller ones can follow. You might need digital ID recorded to buy a house. Then a car. Then eventually pretty much anything. Any legislation allowing the State to link systems via digital ID would be unremarkable and not newsworthy, but the end result could be the Panopticon we are all dreading, or perhaps a toolkit for more hardline governments in the future. For now, you can sign a Petition [1] against the introduction of Digital ID. In the future, you may need to submit digital ID before signing such a petition (rather than the current email address validation). Imagine what a tool that could be for identifying dissenters and undesirables. [1] https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194
• opless 1y ago
  We've seen this before and we'll probably see it again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NO2ID https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NO2ID https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194
• KaiserPro 1y ago
  I am in two minds on this. 1) I don't like centralised ID, its ripe for abuse. 2) I don't like the idea of crapita/accenture/G4S/some other dipshit company designing and running this. However if its an extension of the government gateway, then actually the only "innovation" here is the presumable fine for not keeping it up to date. (that and the smartphone integration, which I suspect is largely symbolic) So long as its GDS rolling it out, and its properly designed (two big ifs) then in principle it could be a useful as the original GDS scheme to make government services "digital" But, the problems of authoritarianism are not to be ignored. starmer doesn't have the bollocks to be a dictator, but jenrick and farage do. Our constitution has no guards against authoritarian capture, its just "good men" doing "good deeds". That was easily overridden with Boris. A decent majority in the House of commons gives you alomst unlimited power of the state.
  • pjc50 1y ago
    Exactly, as I said in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45385512 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45385512 it's a question of trust and purpose; I don't trust these people, the companies behind them, the public opinion they choose to pander to, and the stated purpose of immigration enforcement. Something similar to Estonia would be much less controversial.
    • mavhc 1y ago
      What did Estonia do correctly that UK has not?
      • DicIfTEx 1y ago
        Estonia's system was an area of some fascination for me years ago, so here's what I can remember: After splitting from the Soviet Union, Estonia were basically starting from scratch with their telecoms system. Finland offered them their old stock to get started, but the Estonians decided to instead treat it as a greenfield project and deploy the most modern infrastructure available at the time. Compare to the UK, where most of our infrastructure is literally crumbling as it passes its 50-year predicted lifespan and we spent almost a decade of time and tens of billions of pounds on a vapourware railway line. So the technical inheritance (or lack thereof) favoured Estonia. I don't know much about how the Estonian system was initially built, but I would imagine a post-Soviet state likely retained enough state capacity to do it mostly in-house (and perhaps they received outside funding too, as the '90s were a period of largesse). Compare to the UK, where state capacity is effectively nil and the project would invariably be outsourced to the same contractors and consulting firms that have taken on every other aspect of government, with concomitant price and time overruns (see also: train). A crucial element of the Estonian system is that data is private by default (see https://e-estonia.com/solutions/e-governance/e-services-registries/#:~:text=Privacy%20and%20Trust,most%20secure%20in%20the%20world. https://e-estonia.com/solutions/e-governance/e-services-regi... ) If I recall correctly, any government agency can request access to specified data for a state purpose, but each request must be reviewed and approved by the data subject. All access requests are logged so a subject can audit who has been accessing what (which suggests maybe it's possible to bulk approve access in advance, or grant persistent rights to someone like one's own doctor). In comparison, the Snoopers' Charter granted unfettered access to Brits' Internet connection records to a huge number of agencies, from the security services to the Food & Agriculture Agency (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016#Authorities_allowed_to_access_Internet_connection_records https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016#... ). Estonia is also recognised as a global leader in IT security, following massive investment after Russia-attributed cyberattacks in 2007; they host the NATO Centre of Excellence and the eu-LISA HQ. As far as keeping one's data away from prying outside eyes, they're probably a pretty safe bet. As for the UK… (Eyes passim ad nauseam). Lastly, I believe Estonians generally report greater levels of trust in their government than Brits. 2023 figures suggest the gap may have narrowed from when I last looked (I can't say I've been following Estonian politics, so I couldn't suggest why) but still some 37.8% of Estonians say they trust their national government as compared to 26.7% of Brits (see https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-trsic/trustsurveyinternationalcomparisons2023/results/ https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-trsic/tru... ). And there are certain sizeable constituencies in the UK where, in light of historic abuses, they are even less likely to ever trust the government: Scousers; northerners; women & ethnic minorities (specifically for the police, doubly specifically for the Met); environmental activists (see the spycops scandal); and people of Irish descent. I'm sure there's some skeletons in the Estonian government's closets, but there's a limit to how much damage you can do when your state is 35 years old rather than a centuries-old former world-spanning imperial hegemon. Those stated trust figures also predate the UK government's support for the genocide in Gaza, which has doubtless had a significant impact on that figure; even people who wouldn't have considered themselves particularly political a couple years earlier are appalled at the regular arrests of protesting pensioners outside Parliament (see https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/09/palestine-action-arrests-london-largest-protest-ban https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/09/palestine-acti... ). The incredibly unpopular incumbent government is only the latest in a long line of increasingly authoritarian regimes of both the political right and (allegedly) left (see https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/07/09/labour-needs-arrest-uks-authoritarian-slide https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/07/09/labour-needs-arrest-uks-... ), meaning everybody in the country of any political persuasion can think of recent examples of why they might not want to invite increased government surveillance. Plus, with the recent passage of the Online Safety Act, most people are now primed to associate a new digital ID with the government wanting to know their porn habits, and we're a famously prudish nation. So, in short: · the Estonian government had the ideal circumstances, made all the right choices, prioritised privacy and security and are reasonably trusted by their citizens · the UK government has doddery old infrastructure to work with, no money left, an addiction to outsourcing in spite of repeat disasters, a track record of authoritarian disregard for privacy and have little to no legitimacy amongst the populace And, as others have pointed out, there's just no obvious constituency in the country that would be interested in this sort of thing (outside of Tony Blair and his mates) and no obvious problems that it provides a solution for; it seems like a hard sell, whether on ideological or practical grounds.
• morningmike 1y ago
  this is corny and weird. feels like cyberpunk, government run oligarchy. however, maybe this will improve the UK and stop all the illegals. about time they clean up that country. yuck
• pera 1y ago
  I am quite confused by this point: > A new digital ID scheme will help combat illegal working If you are an immigrant you already have to prove your right to work with a share code: https://www.gov.uk/prove-right-to-work/get-a-share-code-online https://www.gov.uk/prove-right-to-work/get-a-share-code-onli... And if you claim to be a citizen you must show a passport or birth certificate: https://www.gov.uk/prove-right-to-work https://www.gov.uk/prove-right-to-work So how exactly will this new digital ID help "stop those with no right to be here from being able to find work"?
  • mytailorisrich 1y ago
    You are correct and this won't help. The government is using deceit and dishonesty to push this proposal but I think people can see through it. That should really raise a red flag.
    • baggachipz 1y ago
      Just like people saw through Brexit, eh? Sorry, I say this from Trumpistan.
  • IanCal 1y ago
    Showing a birth certificate isn’t a particularly hard bar to pass if you want to fake that you’re a national to be fair. You need just that and a printed letter and there’s nothing an employer will do beyond copying that (afaik you can’t look up a birth certificate and check it’s valid)
    • pera 1y ago
      But it would need to align with the records associated with their NI number no?
      • crimsoneer 1y ago
        Ni number isn't associated to a photo, and selling or trading them is piss easy
• benmmurphy 1y ago
  I don't understand how people are able to work in the UK illegally without employers already breaking the law. Employers are required to pay payroll taxes for their employees and you need a national insurance number for the employee to do this. I'm not sure how this fixes something that should already be fixed.
  • cassianoleal 1y ago
    Not just that but there's already the "share code" system that's used to verify status against the Home Office. This smells a lot of "think of the children" [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
• raxxorraxor 1y ago
  He, this Starmer guy seems weird.
• sjw987 1y ago
  I don't understand why this needs to be linked to a smartphone. No issue with a national ID, but should we really shackle everything to a phone? They're already lost on the questions coming in about those who don't have one. Is this just going to be a cheeky kickback to Palantir given the investment last week: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-strategic-partnership-to-unlock-billions-and-boost-military-ai-and-innovation https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-strategic-partnership...
• pepa65 1y ago
  Digital as opposed to analog..? Or does every adult need to have a smartphone on them all the time?? I think most countries legally require adults to be able to identify themselves with government-issued ID. Is this so novel for the UK? But I really don't get the "digital" bit...
• ChrisArchitect 1y ago
  Earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45381810 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45381810
• voidUpdate 1y ago
  What's the benefit of this over a passport? A passport is a physical thing, so you don't need to have a phone to be able to use it, proves who you are with the same details as this digital ID, and will probably require a similar amount of paperwork to get hold of
  • skimojoe 1y ago
    agree, seems pointless
  • lightwords 1y ago
    You usually don't want to carry a passport with you at all times. In some European countries (e.g., the Nordics), you have your ID, driver’s license, firearm license, etc., all in a government app that can be verified with an app used by officials. You can also sign and authenticate all paperwork with the same system
    • matt-p 1y ago
      Good for them, but I don't see why we need this, or indeed why that's a good thing?
      • netdevphoenix 1y ago
        Easy and cheap regular checks on the spot presential or/and online, as frequently as you want vs rare scheduled difficult and expensive checks. Possibilities get realised such as regular remote checks (ie selfie to prove you are the id owner holder, address proof, etc, flagging odd id holder behaviour or employer, etc). Currently, you cannot do this, no visibility into who works where and where that person even resembles the person meant to be working for [insert gig company].
        • matt-p 1y ago
          I do selfie to prove I match my driver's license all the time (needed for app based banks, and so on)? The government absolutely knows where I work, are you joking? That's what NI numbers are for. You seriously think there isn't a join table in a government database with my NI number and passport number?
• gattr 1y ago
  > Stored on mobile phones, the ID would contain details including a name, date of birth, residency status and crucially a photo - which would distinguish it from National Insurance numbers. Surely it will be possible to also store it on some government-issued, GCHQ-vetted digital device, and not rely on foreign companies (Google/Apple) and their locked-down mobile platforms?
  • masfuerte 1y ago
    They've already said you won't need a mobile phone. They mention phones as a deliberate distraction from the fact that they will be building a huge central database. I will be very surprised if the app does much more than dish up a pre-signed chunk of ID data, much like an e-passport does now. It won't actually need a secure device. (Which isn't to say they will support anything except android and iphone.)
    • somelamer567 1y ago
      Is there any particular reason why a UK central identity database is bad, while the French and Spanish central identity databases aren't a problem?
    • mrob 1y ago
      They have said it will work for people who "aren’t able to use a smartphone". Nothing is said about people who are able but unwilling. I can only assume I will forced to submit to the terms and conditions of a foreign corporation, and forced to use non-Free software.
  • JetSetIlly 1y ago
    This is the most alarming aspect of the proposal to me. I find it wild that the government will require me, by law, to buy an expensive electronic device I don't want or otherwise need, in order to be employed. It's absolutely amazing to me that the government is forcing me to spend money in this way.
    • HankStallone 1y ago
• g0db1t 1y ago
  [dead]
• noelwelsh 1y ago
  I don't think Kier Starmer understands that when people voted for Labour, they were, in fact, voting for Labour, not Reform / the Tories. This proposal at least has some merit (though it is not without issues) but trying to sell it as preventing illegal work is ludicrous, attempting to appeal to the right-wing votes who will never vote Labour, and giving control of the conversation to the Weasel in Chief, Nigel Farage.
  • robin_reala 1y ago
    People vote for an idea of Labour that Labour in the last 25 years has not been able to live up to unfortunately.
  • Lio 1y ago
    If he doesn't realise that then he probably also doesn't realise that all this dictatorship tooling he's installing is more than likely going to fall into the hands of Reform at the next election. He'll have to live with the consequences as will the rest of us.
  • octo888 1y ago
    The voters misunderstood too. How much evidence and examples from the period of 1997-2010 did people need? All a quick google away A harsh lesson in believing the enemy of your enemy is your friend. Though mostly in the UK it's usually just apathetic "well time for the other party to have go" (due to 14 years of the last lot) more than anything more educated
  • Macha 1y ago
    Their strategy seems to be that they think their left flank is secure and they need to pull to the right to secure Tory voters who are now at a crossroads with how diminished the Tories are. Will they go to Reform? Will they go back to the Tories? The Lib Dems? It seems that Labour think some of the toughness without the undertones that Reform often has might grab them some of their voters. Maybe the implosion of Your Party gives them a feeling of more security on the left flank. But yeah, this abandonment of the issues they traditionally represented to try and attract the soft centre right voters might not cause their traditional base to vote for the Tories. But it might send their centrists to the Lib Dems, their lefties to the Greens/SNP/etc and their "I just want change, any change" supporters to Reform. Along with increasing apathy and reducing turnout on their former core. Polling certainly seems to indicate that this is happening.
• matt-p 1y ago
  So I currently have; A National Insurance Card (needed to get a job), drivers license and passport, one of latter is also needed (in practice) to get a job. Why would a brit card help us reduce the number of people working illegally? The only notable 'employers' of illegal workers in the UK are American tech firms Uber and deliveroo (doordash) because they allow driver substitution without verifying that the substitute is legit. That should be made illegal and then fine them into the ground for anyone who slips through. Brit card doesn't help and is a distraction.
  • reactordev 1y ago
    It has nothing to do with cards and everything to do with data.
    • notavalleyman 1y ago
      But the person you're replying to, just explained to you, how the government already have the relevant data. So it's clearly not about data, because the government already issue his NINO and passport Edit - I mean, just play it back in your head. The PM is probably watching small boat arrivals and reform polling numbers like a hawk. And here's his idea to fix both problems, and you're saying, actually no, the PM is just doing this to get data on where I go to work, even though they already have my PAYE details
      • Lio 1y ago
        I think it's 100% about the data. I beleive that Labour see this new ID system as the solution to all the age verification questions now required by the Online Safety Act. e.g. access to things like Reddit, BlueSky messaging, Spotify. With that in mind I think new data you're talking about will be enhanced tracking and monitoring on everyday online activity of UK citizens.
        • motbus3 1y ago
          I don't think it is only online. It is really a distopean future in US and UK right now. I honestly understand the problem with immigration, but at the same time, I think this way of approaching the problem is just to create "the enemy" from 1984. It seems that immigrants right now move something between 4B-10B a month in UK which is not a small number. Considering the costs elsewhere altogether, it seems quite small win for the risk.
• SoftTalker 1y ago
  People already work illegally. They get paid cash, off the books. New forms of ID won't stop this.
  • TheChaplain 1y ago
    I don't think the point is to eliminate all illegal work. But the new form of ID makes work place checks real easy and fast. Add a real hefty fine for the owner and possibly ban from conducting any form business for a few years, that will have undoubtedly have effect.
    • v3xro 1y ago
      There are already hefty fines for owners of businesses where the people are not working "legally". There's a "share code" that employers are supposed to check to verify visas. All the laws and machinery is already there and it does not look particularly high-cost to me.
• pipes 1y ago
  I genuinely think the next move will be using it as part of their age verification check. I am guessing they want it to be your online id. No more anonymous internet usage. It is really grim what is happening to the UK. For the most part no one gives a shit. And if you do, you are automatically branded as "right wing".
  • voidUpdate 1y ago
    Really? I've generally seen more people on the left giving a shit about government overreach etc
    • pipes 1y ago
      Well, the left usually wants to expand the size of government and increase the number of things that it is responsible for.
  • somelamer567 1y ago
    > No more anonymous internet usage And given the torrent of inauthentic "right wing" commentators nudging public opinion on the BBC's Have Your Say, the Daily Mail and Reddit, I'm not entirely sure this will be a bad thing. Recall that Iran cut off the internet for university exams, and the volume of posting by Scottish pro-independence accounts on Twitter/X dropped 98%. Food for thought.
    • philipallstar 1y ago
      > And given the torrent of inauthentic "right wing" commentators nudging public opinion on the BBC's Have Your Say, the Daily Mail and Reddit, I'm not entirely sure this will be a bad thing. Reddit is the most left-wing moderated, fedora-tipping regime it's possible to get.
    • astroflection 1y ago
      Correlation is not causation.
    • angryscot25 1y ago
• phendrenad2 1y ago
  This is just wishful thinking. They're not going to make all of the farm workers, many of whom have difficulty reading ANY language (let alone English), download an "app" and install it on their phone. "In 2024, a significant portion of the UK adult population, approximately 8.5 million people (1 in 6), struggles with reading and writing at a basic level, according to The Reading Agency's 2024 report" Maybe they'll have an exception for people who are more migratory in nature. In that event, I think we'll get to see a nice real-world example of a cyberpunk-style dystopia. "High tech, low life". The upstanding citizens will be surveilled, preyed upon by corruption, and will be running on a social credit score treadmill designed to work them to death. Meanwhile, a plucky band of rebel farm workers, who are free to work outside the system, will bring down the establishment and bring freedom to all. Roll credits.
• somelamer567 1y ago
  HARD eye-roll at the libertarian scaremongering about this basic, sensible idea to tame the identity mess. * I have half a dozen different ID numbers for various things like NI, NHS, drivers license, tax etc * I also have a dozen different GOV.UK logins for various services. * When need to provide strong proof of identity to AWS to reset a root password, I have to go to a notary and pay £200 for a signature and stamp and then scan the paperwork into an email. The antis, as always, are clutching at straws. At what point does this stop being acceptable because of libertarian vibes and scaremongering about 'Big Brother' -- especially when most of the rest of the world has had ID cards for decades?
  • voidUpdate 1y ago
    https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/
  • iamnothere 1y ago
    I don’t own and refuse to purchase an iPhone or Android device. Where would that leave me? Fortunately I am not a UK citizen! This effectively blocks development of mobile Linux as an alternative in the UK. It is already enough of a challenge to get people to try Linux phones without support for their favorite apps, and now it’s a requirement to own a US big tech pocket spy device? Absolutely absurd and Orwellian, and from the birthplace of Orwell no less.
    • astonex 1y ago
      Orwell was born in India. You should learn a little about him before saying everything is Orwellian
      • iamnothere 1y ago
        British India.
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • 1y ago
• exe34 1y ago
  Unlike the NI number, which you can't legally work without...
  • astonex 1y ago
    This is not true. You can work without a NI number, you will just be given an emergency tax code. A NI number is not ID, it is a reporting number. Your card literally says, "THIS IS NOT IDENTIFICATION"
• dfedbeef 1y ago
  Wanna bet lol
• lelandfe 1y ago
  I feel like governments worldwide are perennially musing “what if we could know what everyone is doing, all the time?”
  • somelamer567 1y ago
    This is a natural and unfortunate consequence of crime and foreign aggression getting increasingly borderless. As the world gets smaller, and as more and more of the world's population knows about the outside world, the more badness we face. Like it or not, our high-trust society is devolving into a low-trust society as the world opens up. Our defences must evolve -- and the current free-for-all needs to end.
    • octo888 1y ago
      Perhaps the better solution is to stop opening up and make a concerted effort to return to a high-trust society, rather than destroy privacy and go full authoritarian polite-state? Or must we absolutely must accept eg every Nigerian, Pakistani, Syrian, Afghan, Indian etc who has a fleeting desire emigrate, else our society will collapse?
      • angryscot25 1y ago
        I don't understand why we can't have both - are you saying that native-born Brits are inherently more trustworthy than people from other nationalities? Or do you mean that we should also curb internal migration as well?
  • alexashka 1y ago
    If your cattle had a tendency to communicate with one another and wonder about their circumstance - you'd also start 'musing'.
• gushie 1y ago
  I won't hold my breath. It'll take 5 times longer than planned, cost 10 times more, won't do everything it originally set out to do, then won't work on the tech that everyone will have when finished, and a future government will decide they don't like it and will start over.
• motbus3 1y ago
  Can anyone really point me out the real problem about the immigrants? How big is it compared to, for example the lack of funding of the NHS or the hyper funding of other initiatives such as war in Ukraine. Or are those things somehow related? I would be crazily scared to know that immigrant care workers will leave NHS as most hospitals relies on them. The government already made clear they won't pay people more nor will give more benefits for NHS workers and I am quite sure not Brits will take those spots when Tesco express pays more for less hours of work with more benefits.
  • astonex 1y ago
    >Can anyone really point me out the real problem about the immigrants? This minimises the problem. The UK voters have consistently voted for reduced immigration, with polls showing the preferred number to be somewhere between 0-100,000. Those elected have consistently ignored them which has raised tensions. In the last few years, the UK had around 1 million people net per year. 1 million people is bigger than most cities in the UK for comparison, so imagine a new city of people, every single year. The infrastructure could not, or did not keep up and has contributed to worse living standards through overly-subscribed national services, increased living costs, etc. >for example the lack of funding of the NHS or the hyper funding of other initiatives such as war in Ukraine. The NHS is already the single biggest expenditure of the UK's taxes. I remember it being more than 25% of the total budget. How much should be spent on the NHS? 50%? 90%? The cost of defending democracy and freedom from a tyrannical Russia is also barely a drop in the bucket, while having huge meaning for many. Only 2% of the budget for the entire Armed forces, let alone just some support for Ukraine, compared to the 25+% on NHS. It's nothing.
    • benrutter 1y ago
      I think there's some conflation happening here (not necessarily from the above comment). Those figures relate to general immigration, which wouldn't be affected by ID schemes since people are given approval by the government to arrive and work in the UK. If the government wanted to reduce regular immigration, it could just decide to award less visas. The ID scheme would only affect irregular immigration which is much lower (approx 50,000 a year by the governments stats, obviously hard to know how accurate that is, but much lower than 1 million[0]). [0] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-june-2025/how-many-people-come-to-the-uk-irregularly https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-...
• GordonS 1y ago
  It's quite possible that this whole digital ID thing is a red herring, to distract from recent revelations about Morgan McSweeney - who illegally took money from the Israel lobby, to fund a fake "antisemitism crisis" in Labour, with the goal of replacing Corbyn with Israel-aligned Starmer. Some of the digital ID proposal documents published by UK gov even bear the "Labour Together" stamp - Labour Together being the Israel-aligned "think tank" that McSweeney used for the illegal funds!
  • octo888 1y ago
    > Some of the digital ID proposal documents published by UK gov even bear the "Labour Together" stamp - Labour Together being the Israel-aligned "think tank" that McSweeney used for the illegal funds! Wow straight out of the Tory playbook (see eg Rhys-Mogg "lying [down] in Parliament" to poison search results for lying to parliament). They are so incredibly similar
• Hikikomori 1y ago
  In Sweden we have bank id that you can optionally use as ID (new feature). But its mostly used to validate purchases, sign things, or login to banks, government websites or whatever website might use it to auth. It does not hand over all id information to the site that uses it to identify you, just name and personal number.
  • ahoka 1y ago
    "just name and personal number" Which can be used to get everything else, thanks to ridiculous privacy laws in Sweden.
    • Hikikomori 1y ago
      And what are they going to do with that?
• whywhywhywhy 1y ago
  Anti-migrant rhetoric used to push control that will only ever apply to citizens from the supposed party you should have voted for if you're pro-migration is wild.
• ryukafalz 1y ago
  In addition to all the issues mentioned in the article, this seems to mean that UK citizens will effectively be forced to accept the terms of service of one of two US companies (Apple or Google). If you must have either an Android or iOS device to run this digital ID app (which presumably will be distributed via the Play Store on Android), there's no other option!
  • mytailorisrich 1y ago
    For me a big red flag is that the government is using deceit and dishonesty to push this: "in an effort to crack down on illegal migrant workers" is complete, transparent rubbish.
    • spacedcowboy 1y ago
      Of all the things there are to complain about these ID cards, I don’t think this is the one to choose. Starmer has been ambivalent on ID cards (at least compared to Blair, who must think Xmas has come twice this year). Really the only reason this is being introduced is because it lets Labour look like they’re trying to tackle illegal immigration/employment/benefits-claiming. Reform (led by Trump’s mini-me) is making political progress hand over fist by casting immigration as the root of all evil. I’m pretty certain this is Labour’s response. They don’t want the populist (otherwise known as “batshit insane”) policies Reform are proposing (“end all immigration, send all immigrants back home”) - but a more-moderate “you need to prove you’re entitled to work/live here/claim benefits” seems on-message to me. So for once it might just be ok to take a politicians word at face value. This doesn’t preclude nefarious use later on, of course…
      • mytailorisrich 1y ago
        If that's Labour's response to Reform UK then it is the most ill-thought-out, if not idiotic, possible: There is a real issue with immigration in the UK. People want actual action on immigration, not gimmicks, not lies. The Conservatives were annihilated because their voters caught up with the fact that they were lying (talking tough while actually pushing immigration higher). Those Digital IDs would do nothing against illegal immigration considering existing right to work and right to rent legal checks. It is clear and people see it, so see previous point. "you need to prove you’re entitled to work/live here/claim benefits" is already the case and has always been the case. He is copying the disastrous Conservative strategy to talk tough while doing nothing and in fact actually keeping immigration up. There have been previous attempts to introduce ID cards. People have always been generaly against them and the most against them are probably those already supporting Reform UK or the libertarians on both sides. So he's only eroding the little support he has left (progressist liberals) while strengthening the opinion of those already against him. I was looking at the readers' comments on The Guardian and there are overwhelmingly opposed to the proposal. So if even them turn against Starmer he is well and truly toast.
• einarfd 1y ago
  If you look at the countries that are lauded at having the best online government services. They all have some type of digital ID. Having something like that is imo. a cornerstone for building out top notch digital governmental services, and I don't fault the UK for trying to get this in place. That being said, I'm not convinced it will be that much of a blocker for illegal workers. I'm sure they will find a way around it.
  • cheema33 1y ago
    If I hire someone to work and pay them in cash, then I don't need to worry about this? Yes?
• mindcrash 1y ago
  In case you are wondering if only the UK is working on this... buckle up: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/european-digital-identity_en https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-... https://ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/sites/spaces/EUDIGITALIDENTITYWALLET/pages/694487738/EU+Digital+Identity+Wallet+Home https://ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/sites/spaces/EU... https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet
• Xss3 1y ago
  Any digital ID not using a form of blockchain tech is doing it wrong in my view.
  • isbvhodnvemrwvn 1y ago
    What purpose would that serve if identity is assigned by a centralized entity (the government)?
    • Xss3 1y ago
      Fraud prevention and decentralised id verification. In a nutshell itd give identities the same level of technological protection that crypto currencies have.
      • Xss3 1y ago
        Would be very useful for voting too. Bulletproof fraudulent vote or ballot modification prevention.
      • isbvhodnvemrwvn 1y ago
        There is nothing this does that digital signature don't already.
        • Xss3 1y ago
          Implementation details matter
• Simulacra 1y ago
  Quite ... a papers please moment.. if I recall correctly, South Korea has it where you have to register with the government to get an assigned username and password.
• dang 1y ago
  We changed the URL from https://news.sky.com/video/all-british-adults-to-require-a-digital-id-brit-card-13438041 https://news.sky.com/video/all-british-adults-to-require-a-d..., which is a video, to a text article that appears to give the important background info.
• lawlessone 1y ago
  How's this going to work in Norther Ireland? They haven't thought of that have they?
• illwrks 1y ago
  I don’t see why they can’t augment and phase in a new National Insurance ID which has photo on it rather than introducing some new system… Unless of course this new system is for some other unclear purpose.
• tekno45 1y ago
  What info is on this ID that they don't already have access to? Not from the UK so i don't know how much more they're asking for
  • JetSetIlly 1y ago
    That's not really the issue people have with it. The issue I have is that it provides a convenient way for people to hassle me for my identity. Being able to identify myself is not a problem I've ever had and I don't like the idea of being forced to buy a smartphone just to remain an employed citizen in the UK.
• fithisux 1y ago
  So sad for Britain. But the rest of the countries are eager to follow. Thankfully war is starting soon.
• woodylondon 1y ago
  We already have multiple forms of identification. The National Insurance number, passports and photo ID such as driving licences, which we must provide when starting employment. If you're not from Britain, you must present evidence of your right to work or other documentation. This is already the law. Any company that does not follow this is violating the law. In reality, most illegal workers are engaged in cash-in-hand jobs that never require ID. A digital ID alone will not solve this problem. Adding a digital ID won't make any difference. We've also seen similar issues with the UK's attempt to censor adult content "to protect children." It sounds reasonable on the surface (no child should have open access to the internet!). Still, the law was written so broadly that even community clubs involving children with no relation to adult content were caught in its provisions. Threatened by fines and bureaucratic red tape, many closed their doors. International sites that had no idea what to do - now block the UK. And did this stop access to explicit content? No. Anyone can use a VPN, or an anonymity-oriented browser like Brave and use a Tor tab to bypass the blocks completely. For the non-technical, how long before these Age ID check services, which the government wants everyone to use (private companies owned mainly by adult companies), are hacked and everyone's viewing habits are released? How long before we're required to use our Digital ID to log on to the internet, enabling monitoring of everything we browse? A more innovative approach would be for ISPs to by default integrated parental controls on residential connections, something that has been technically possible for decades. In fact, any mobile phone contract in the UK operates similarly. Why not home internet? This isn't about new legislation; it's about education. Parents already understand why they shouldn't give alcohol or tobacco to their children; why not teach them how to protect their children online? The new NHS app and driving licence app are expected to be available by the end of 2025. How long before they're integrated into a single system where the government maintains one massive database containing every individual's driving information, medical records, browsing history, banking and tax details? It's not far-fetched to imagine such overreach occurring. Also as of this week, HMRC (our UK tax office) also now has the right to raid any UK bank account for taxes owed (leaving only £5,000 in the account). This applies to both individuals and companies. Consider a company that becomes insolvent days before paying salaries how will they pay their workers? Some companies have already become insolvent after paying wages while still owing taxes and National Insurance. Just HMRC now get their money and the employees won’t. I realise there are several loosely connected points above, but that's precisely the problem: all these developments have emerged over the past 18 months. So when the UK government claims these measures are "for the people," the argument falls flat. It's difficult to believe that policymakers don't recognise these fundamental flaws. This raises the question: what's the real motivation? To me, it seems less about protection and more about monitoring and control, implemented by people too afraid to speak against their superiors. At nearly 50, I see a UK very different from the one I was born into. One thing I know for sure: once this process begins, it will only worsen, and a new government will maintain these systems and extend them further. We left Europe - but kept every single law! As a nation, we just allow all of this to happen. It’s the British way!
• a022311 1y ago
  The same thing is happening in Greece. The new mandatory digital ID replaces and unifies everything about citizens in one place, "to make it easier for government services to share information between each other". It can indeed be useful, but the privacy implications are enormous. Just imagine that a policeman, employer or anybody else with access to the information linked to the ID can instantly view our medical records, tax status and even simpler things like if we've ever been caught driving while drunk. Nobody knows what other information could be attached to it, but it's certain that it can be used to discriminate against us. The worst part is that we no longer have any power to do something about it. Eventually, after it goes through the testing phase in the UK and Greece (and a few other countries where it's being implemented), this will probably roll out on a global scale, making privacy impossibly. I'm starting to get this feeling that in the next decade, we'll be living in 1984...
  • asah 1y ago
    ??? do not rely on incompetence for privacy. anyway, privacy is dead - longer conversation, but even if you don't carry your cell, there's cameras everywhere with face/gate recognition.
    • BeefySwain 1y ago
      Do you mean gait recognition?
      • asah 1y ago
        Lol yes, bad auto complete :-)
    • EasyMark 1y ago
      It doesn't have to be dead, that's a choice we made as a society. It's an artificial limitation if people wake up and vote against it while they still can
      • bilvar 1y ago
• alfor 1y ago
  Digital ID is the pattern of the mark in revelation. Once you let go of God (worship of truth and love) the government or other totalitarian force will try to control people top down. The logical way is to identify them. You go from a system of free will and distributed cognition to one of enforcement top down. New things can always be added to it as you don't control it. All the "problems" of the states will tag along. Making it digital is way worse than anything before because it allow to control you without having to pay a cost in enforcement, you control the flow of money, of exchange, you let the computer control people allowing a system so top down the Nazi and communist couldn't even imagine. Worse part, it's already there for sure but in shadow form, they have all the info about the people, it's just not tied to financial transactions and out there in the public.
• irishmanlondon 1y ago
  [dead]
• surfingdino 1y ago
  It's interesting how an idea almost nobody wants to see implemented in practice keeps coming back thanks to the efforts of the person most of the country, including his own party would rather forget.
• ktosobcy 1y ago
  UK's (and USA's) aversion to state ID is quite amusing... and then solving everything that not-having-national-ID causes requires absurd solutions... but hey "ID is the worst thing ever"
  • bArray 1y ago
    In the UK, the individual never used to interact with their government at all. We value our privacy and lack of government interference, and everything was legal unless it was explicitly outlined as illegal. It was a high trust society. Since being forced into globalisation and the concept of a border being essentially abolished (of course unless you talk about Ukraine, in which case billions can be spent on enforcing it), everything is flipped on its head. The terrorism act means that you have no right to silence, no right to legal representation and you are compelled to provide your passwords. The government now gets further and further involved with private matters, such as what content you engage with online (online safety act) and have plans to force ID to be linked to social media. In my area, you cannot walk into a GP and request an appointment, they tell you to go away. You have to install an app, link it to your details, provide evidence of who you are, go on video, wait a few days, and then you are allowed to request an appointment (in a few weeks time). Bare in mind that healthcare is denied to nobody in the UK. This year the Legal Aid Agency had a large cyber security breach [1]. People's names, financial information, and the fact that they apply for legal aid was breached. One of the few reasons you can get Legal Aid is being a domestic abuse victim. > This data may have included contact details and addresses of applicants, their dates of birth, national ID numbers, criminal history, employment status and financial data such as contribution amounts, debts and payments. In some instances, information about the partners of legal aid applicants may be included in the compromised data. This same government wants to collect and centralise the private details of all citizens in the UK. It makes me sick. [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/legal-aid-agency-data-breach https://www.gov.uk/government/news/legal-aid-agency-data-bre...
    • ktosobcy 1y ago
      > Since being forced into globalisation You mean the time when the UK concquered the whole world and formed "The empire on which the sun never sets"? Yeees... UK was forced into globalization xD Alas, any country where "doing anything unless it's forbidden" results in a clusterf* that the USA is today, and it has nothing to do with trust or being "civilized" As for breaches - you are aware that the civilized society can have national IDs - plastic one, issued by the state that are used for... well... IDentification that don't require uber-surviliance and centralizing data worse than in China? Just because UK does something stupid (and it's on a record roll past decades) doesn't mean that the concept of ID is wrong... For example in Poland and in Spain you can easily get doctors appointment just by showing up and waving your ID…
• boxerab 1y ago
  "Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better"
• vixen99 1y ago
  https://www.ft.com/content/b8c02080-a290-4af7-9702-03230aa9c922 https://www.ft.com/content/b8c02080-a290-4af7-9702-03230aa9c... "Hackers obtained the details of tens of millions of British voters in a “complex cyber attack” on the Electoral Commission that went undetected for more than a year, the elections watchdog admitted on Tuesday. The body said “hostile actors” first breached its network in August 2021, gaining access to its file-sharing and email systems and obtaining copies of the electoral register, but “suspicious activity” was not identified until October 2022." Of course such a thing will never happen in relation to Digital ID Cards, will it?
• prmph 1y ago
  I don't know what western countries are thinking. The concept of an isolated nation state is fast approaching obsolescence. Very soon, it will be clear that it is meaningless to put strong restrictions on the free movement of people. And history shows that an emphasis on keeping people out is a precursor to the decline of an empire. One thing I never understand: if people want to come to your country, that is a vote for the idea that you are doing something right. So, why not use for good? Why not designate a area of the country for the immigrants to initially settle in, using your laws and structures to provide them a better way to live? They are usually very hungry to work. Or, why not band up with other countries to establish refuge cities where the immigrants can initially settle and build new lives? You never hear of the US etc investing in infrastructure in African countries, for e.g., it is always about a militarization effort to contain supposed terrorists. Keeping people out betrays that your "success" is built on the back of exfiltrating resources from around the world and concentrating it in your countries, thus keeping the rest of the world poor.
  • basisword 1y ago
    There are many legal routes to immigration and seeking asylum. People choose to move illegally because they won’t succeed on the legal routes and know that once they’re in the country the chance of them being deported is pretty low.
    • array_key_first 1y ago
      The legal routes are also often strenuous, far too long lived, overly strict, and obtuse. If you barely speak the language, it's not easy. Unfortunately many countries have made immigration so hard, in an effort to combat it, that they've done the opposite - people immigrate illegally because it has a higher success rate than doing it legally. If I apply for X, Y, and Z and I'm denied, I'm fucked. But if I just move... And then figure it out later... That might work better. And that's how we got into this mess. A lot of this anti-immigration legislation actually increases the incentives for illegal immigration.
      • bowmessage 1y ago
• drnick1 1y ago
  And, of course, that digital ID will require an "approved app" (blessed by Apple and Google) running on an unrooted phone. Don't want spyware running on your phone? Too bad.
  • crazygringo 1y ago
    Huh? Spyware, ransomware, etc. is a dangerous problem on rooted phones. It's the unrooted ones that have protections against it.
    • EasyMark 1y ago
      They're talking about government spyware. Why not install a little bit extra into that digital ID app
      • crazygringo 1y ago
        But as long as the phone is unrooted the all can't spy on anything. Your phone restricts it. If you root your phone and install apps, your apps can do anything and spy all they want. So the comment still makes zero sense.
        • ptrl600 1y ago
          Apps on a rooted phone can only do anything if you give them the root permission. Otherwise, permissions the same as always.
          • crazygringo 1y ago
            That's the point. You're able to give them that permission. That's a vulnerability. OP was arguing that unrooted phones are somehow less safe, which is absurd.
        • a5c11 1y ago
          Unless you have a physical switch, you can't trust that a toggle button will actually disable or enable a feature. It wouldn't be the first time UK government tried to push some sort of backdoor. It isn't particularly difficult (from the OS's manufacturer perspective) to tell the user: "sure bro, this gov app doesn't access your location or mic xD".
• Edmond 1y ago
  This doesn't have to be scary, you can pair this with cryptographic certificates to get rigorous privacy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44723418 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44723418 You use the ID to create an IRL identify anchor certificate, then use other certificates with varying privacy profiles that are then cryptographically linked to your identity but in a privacy preserving manner.
• randerson 1y ago
  [flagged]
  • v3xro 1y ago
    > living at taxpayers' expense Presumably the form for applying for benefits has a reasonably high bar for identifying the fact that you are in fact legally present in the country? Or how else do you imagine people living at "taxpayer's expense"? Just begging on the streets?
    • gretch 1y ago
      If they have a medical incident and go to a hospital emergency room, are they treated?
      • kimixa 1y ago
        Yes, but generally a Medical Incident isn't really particularly desirable. You don't really get anything out of it other than "being healthy", which could be argued as being a right, and often a prerequisite for starting to contribute. Gatekeeping that just ensures they never will.
      • Muromec 1y ago
        That's the abuse of my tax money I can allow according to my beliefs, religious or otherwise.
      • throwaway150 1y ago
        Do you know how much money the immigrants pay as taxes, health surcharge and National Insurance contributions in exchange for the right to live and work in the UK? Don't forget that the taxes, health surcharge and NI contributions of the immigrations are literally funding the NHS! I think it is fair to expect the contributors to get treatment when they are contributing so much to it.
        • aucisson_masque 1y ago
• gorgoiler 1y ago
  Leveraging a central authority to issue standardised, signed tokens to all citizens, then letting the public and private sectors make use of it: that’s something I could get behind! The government steps in solely to manage token issuance. New use cases appear as emergent properties. DebbiesDrawings.com lets you use your tokens to sign eCards. HMRC.gov.uk lets you use then to sign tax returns. RonsRentals.co.uk lets you use it to sign a new lease. In a pessimistic world, without watching the hyenas closely we end up with Capita or Accenture or Concentrica or Syntegrico (I made the last two up) syphoning off £8bn to create proprietary tokens that can only be used with sanctioned government JavaBeans webcrap. It would also be fundamentally flawed and won’t launch until 2037. With care, something really cool could happen.
• jama211 1y ago
  I find it hard to make a nuanced take without being downvoted sometimes, but I honestly both agree this is bad/not necessary, AND that half the people in here are worrying a little too much/being a bit too pessimistic about it. Can one not hold both of these opinions at the same time?
• wartywhoa23 1y ago
  First they deliberately flood Europe and UK with illegal immigrants. Then they demand that native citizens accept digital ID to solve that manufactured problem. But truly their evil genius lies in the fact that a hefty part of natives will dismiss and mock everyone who tells them this as a conspiracy theorist.
• CrzyLngPwd 1y ago
  Illegal immigrants working illegally will continue to do so, since they don't care about the law, as demonstrated by arriving illegally. Anyway, according to some news stories, they don't need to work, since they get everything for free anyway.
• type0 1y ago
  UK is taking the worst ideas from Russia. Orwell is turning over in his coffin
• paxys 1y ago
  Nothing is going to change unless you put the entire penalty of illegal employment on the employer. This could mean massive fines, shutting down the business and/or jail time. In the US hundreds of illegal workers are rounded up every day and jailed/deported while their employers get a slap on the wrist, and these employers then just turn around and hire more illegal immigrants. The overall problem goes unsolved.
• ihsw 1y ago
  [dead]
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• nextworddev 1y ago
  Similar to e-verify?
• EasyMark 1y ago
  Next comes sensors in said cards, if someone walks by an digital observation post without the card on them they will now be tagged by visual recognition and documented as illegal/possibly illegal until proven otherwise. Expect the database to record it and start drawing up statistics on said undocument individual. The undocumented police will be notified and be on alert to apprehend at first opportunity. Coming to you in 2030.
• xbar 1y ago
  After the UK Post fiasco, I wonder if Hitachi is providing the software. My point: even if this was a good idea, it is easy to get the software wrong in a way that is a complete disaster.
• saltysalt 1y ago
  The Empire Strikes Back
• Havoc 1y ago
  Kinda ambivalent about it. The eu settled system used for those that stayed post brexit is basically already this except website Works ok
• gethly 1y ago
  Do not worry, people. You can vote yourself out of this. Like, totally. Just vote harder.
• mettamage 1y ago
  So is this like DigID as in the Netherlands? Or is this more far reaching?
• Tycho 1y ago
  I don’t understand what is wrong with this system: “Please employ me.” “OK, fill out this form with your name, D.O.B. and national insurance number, and if it matches against the government database then you can have the job.” What am I missing here? I suppose they could use someone else’s details, but then HMRC should be able to easily see that the NI account seems to have multiple taxpayers.
  • t14000 1y ago
    You will also want a photo that matches the face presented every time your gig worker looks at his phone to see the next order, etc or better yet fingerprint
• varispeed 1y ago
  This is just another pillar of fascist Britain. Developed mostly by multinational corporations in bed with government, hosted on private servers presumably under Cloud Act. Labour has sold British citizens to corporations.
• Arch-TK 1y ago
  "The new digital ID will be held on people’s phones" Is the implication here that it will become a legal requirement for me to own a modern phone (will it have to be a google/apple blessed phone?) in order to get a job in the UK?
• aussieguy1234 1y ago
  "Government says digital ID will make it harder to work illegally" Today it's immigrants, tomorrow it could be dissidents. In East Germany a common strategy the government used was to not put dissidents in prison, but make life hard for them in many ways including by denying them employment. Of course none of this stops under the table work - which those engaging in illegal work are probably already doing.
• closeparen 1y ago
  It has been obvious for at least 10 years of "digital privacy" as an issue that the next time people with certain database attributes would be restricted from full participation in society or rounded up by armed men, the attributes at issue would be citizenship and immigration status. This moment is the test for the edifice that the privacy advocates have built in all that time. We should all be watching closely.
• codedokode 1y ago
  The point of digital ID might be to add more cases when ID is required in future. One thing if everyone buying a kitchen knife must fill a long form, another thing if they just must tap a phone on the cash register linking knife ID and person's ID. Half of you are already tapping a phone to pay for the items anyway. One thing is showing a passport to enter the gay bar, another thing is tap a phone and have time, person ID and bar ID recorded. Much faster. Also the mobile application can collect other data from the phone without distracting a user. So much more convenient.
  • biztos 1y ago
    Once the ban on pointy cutlery is imposed and knife crime gives way to fork crime, you’ll be glad you only have to tap your phone at the pub instead of eating that Sunday Roast with a spoon.
• stuaxo 1y ago
  This is totally pointless. When starting a job you already have to give enough ID to do the home offices job for them, this adds absolutely nothing.
• kranke155 1y ago
  The UK is absolutely paranoid about national ID cards and has been for decades. Not sure how that happened tbh seems like the US has a similar allergy.
  • andrewflnr 1y ago
    We both have governments with a track record of technological incompetence and surveillance overreach. Unfortunately it seems pretty rational to me.
• userbinator 1y ago
  Are there any Amish in the UK? In the US, they probably have ID (like most other citizens) but not the digital form that's being discussed here. I'm not against the idea of having an ID card, as like many others I have some of my own, but that's a physical, inert object which stands on its own, not tied to anything ephemeral and fragile like a mobile phone or computer would be.
• louloulou 1y ago
  Problem. Reaction. Solution.
• eboynyc32 1y ago
  . The UK is in shambles. For 15 years, raw sewage has poured into its rivers unchecked. The government shrugs. Meanwhile, the nation wallows in self-pity about losing “world power” status, yet produces little of note. In the AI race, the space race, the EV race? Nowhere to be found.
• jrochkind1 1y ago
  Interesting to require residents to have smartphones, I don't think they were before?
• robertdaniels 1y ago
  I am concerned about the UK's initiative to implement mandatory digital IDs, particularly regarding scalable threat detection. This could lead to an increase in spoofing attempts and automated credential stuffing once the system is rolled out.
• UberFly 1y ago
  This quote from Starmer tells me that this is as much about control of its citizens as anything else: "In the UK ... we have got a right-wing proposition that we have not had in this country before ... so the battle of our times is between patriotic national renewal ... versus something which is turning into a toxic divide."
• jimnotgym 1y ago
  In the UK, employers are already legally bound to check peoples right to work. But some don't, and they get away with it So what will change?
• jimnotgym 1y ago
  How about just making passports free to get in the UK? There is already a system for that
• citrin_ru 1y ago
  Leaving aside that this ID solves no problem (as noted in may comments here) the last thing already stretched budget needs right now is a new expensive project.
• frobisher 1y ago
  zero-knowledge proofssss baybayyyyyyy
• jesprenj 1y ago
  What if you don't have a phone?
• rglynn 1y ago
  I think this episode of Yes Minister is rather relevant, albeit EU focused. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVYqB0uTKlE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVYqB0uTKlE
• physarum_salad 1y ago
  JR-M just tore this to shreds in a very thorough and historically informed way. Not someone I agree with on a lot of things, however this hit the nail on the head: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FZKkQR7MCo&list=LL&index=3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FZKkQR7MCo&list=LL&index=3
• 1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
  No Datadome Javascript: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/britain-to-introduce-compulsory-digital-id-for-workers/ar-AA1Nmgi0/ https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/britain-to-introduce-c... Text-only: https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1Nmgi0/ https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1Nmgi0...
• asimpleusecase 1y ago
  The UK gov will force the ID cards on everyone, knowing full well that people don’t want them. Then china will hack the Uk and steal all the data.
• ghusto 1y ago
  From the governments page on this^1: >How we will ensure it is available to everyone > > Millions of people in the UK lack access to traditional proofs of identity like passports. It is estimated that 10% of UK citizens have never had a passport, while 93% of adults own a smart phone. > > This means it can be difficult to prove your eligibility for services such as opening a bank account and claiming benefits. Digital ID will give you free, secure identity verification. I get it, you're the government so double-speak is part of the deal, but it's like you're not even trying to make it sound convincing any more, and that scares me. Putting aside the fact that the reason why some people don't have a passport is _not because it's difficult to get a passport ordered_, it still doesn't explain why having 2% more people who don't have a passport makes it easier to have this new solution -- let alone address the fact that some people do not have a smartphone! ^1 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/digital-id-scheme-explainer/digital-id-scheme-explainer#how-we-will-ensure-it-is-available-to-everyone https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/digital-id-scheme...