16 ms·

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’ C

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.
- jonex 1y ago
  It's the difference between proportional voting vs winner takes it all. In the latter case you can't really hold politicians accountable, as you will have to choose between effectively throwing your vote away or voting for the one opposition candidate, that often will be just as bad. While the UK have some level of representativeness, each circuit has a winner takes it all structure, making change quite hard to achieve on a larger scale.
  - HPsquared 1y ago
    This might be a "grass is greener" thing. Do elected representatives actually have higher approval rating, or enact policies that better fit with public opinion, under proportional systems? Sure it'd probably make things a little better, but it won't actually solve anything hard, I think. All Western countries are struggling (and mostly failing) to deal with the same problems regardless of details like electoral system.
    - ghusto 1y ago
      With proportionate representation you get what _should_ happen, in my opinion, which is sometimes nothing. If the coalition can't decide on something, then it doesn't happen, which is the correct outcome because not enough people agree about it. It represents the people (who also can not agree on it). The alternative is a decision that most people don't agree with.
      - HPsquared 1y ago
        My view is it's always organised elites making the decisions, no matter the system. Nominally left-wing parties often make brazen right-wing moves, and vice-versa. The votes that matter are those of the MPs, Congress members etc. which are always influenced by a range of factors and organised factions. That's the actual decision-making mechanism.
        actionfromafar 1y ago
pmontra 1y ago
Italy has got an ID card since forever. Of course it was a piece of paper, it's a piece of plastic with a chip now. There is some experimentation to move that into the state app. Everything accelerates when it becomes digital, for the better or for the worse. One thing that an ID does not do is preventing crime and allowing only legal jobs. People find a lot of ways to circumvent the rules as long as there are money to earn.
- sterlind 1y ago
  do those state apps use Play Integrity on Android? will you be required to lock yourself into Apple or Google's walled garden in order to be a citizen?
  - pmontra 1y ago
    No idea, I never installed it. I can do everything from my web browser.
iamnothere 1y ago
But don’t you understand, it will be so convenient. Just imagine the convenience! Are you opposed to convenience? Frankly, you’re just being paranoid. It’s possible that mandatory digital ID could be abused, but officials haven’t yet announced their intentions to abuse it. So why are you so worried? You’re already tracked everywhere you go, and many countries already have this system. It seems to work well there for keeping people in line. Do you have something to hide? Seems a little suspicious, no? (Did I miss any talking points?)
- array_key_first 1y ago
  > officials haven’t yet announced their intentions to abuse it. This one is my favorite. I don't know if it's just unthinkable naivety or a misunderstanding of how bad actors work, but it boggles my mind that this type of reasoning is often one of the top arguments I hear.
  - baobun 1y ago
    The post office scandal wasn't that long ago, even. How can you blame people for doubting the ability to keep integrity of the system and that it won't be abused and that any abuse or incidents won't be covered up? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- Muromec 1y ago
  >(Did I miss any talking points?) Silently pointing out to the whole world that does this already and nothing scary happened that can't happen otherwise. The only reason we have ids is the borders and codified inequality anyway. I can't go to certain places with one id and can go there with the other. In some specific places I can go in, but would not be able to get out. Somehow I haven't seen a lot of intersection between people who believe we should not have borders and people who believe we should not have ids.
- 1y ago
nostrademons 1y ago
I wonder if zkSTARKS could help here. Prove that the validity of a statement (like "I am a citizen that is authorized to receive benefits") without revealing your precise identity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interactive_zero-knowledge_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interactive_zero-knowledge...
- teddyh 1y ago
  This would be great and all, but all parties who are in a position to choose to implement this kind of system or to keep the status quo are already motivated to keep (and expand) the existing systems, for any number of reasons. Everybody (except the end users) loves to keep that juicy metadata and incidental logs of everything. (Repost from 2021: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26560821 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26560821>)
  - nostrademons 1y ago
    It's worth designing a system of government that works for everybody, if only for the simple reason that we will very shortly (if we don't already) have a system that works for nobody, and likely everybody shooting everybody else will follow soon after that. A utopia at least gives people something to shoot for, and if you get very lucky you might end up with an idealist in power who's willing to give it a shot.
- grues-dinner 1y ago
  That's basically how the existing share code system works for non-citizens. You the worker ask the government for a share code. You provide that to the prospective employer and they can check that it is valid. The same or similar system can be used for driving license validity. The digital ID is presumably (this is my pulling a guess from my rear end, but if I had to implement it, I'd use the existing system) an extension to cover citizens too. In fact, in principle of that's how it works, it will marginally improve privacy because current status quo is basically that citizens provide their passport to the employer to demonstrate right to work via citizenship. I also assume that the universal use of a single system means that spot-checking any workers status becomes easier. Currently if police, say, to use a common example, stop a food delivery rider and ask for their right to work they can say they're a citizen and just don't have ID on them. The UK has long derided the idea of everyone being expected to have ID with them with phrases like "papieren bitte", but it does mean that the authorities basically cannot check working statuses unless there's a physical workplace they can raid. Which is a weakness app-platforms and many people without the right to work have figured out. A cynic might think that that kind of problem sounds a lot like a problem the government could already have solved in several other ways, but by letting it fester might finally garner public acceptance for the universal ID system they've always wanted.
qazwsxedchac 1y ago
The ID cards as realized in many other countries are comparatively benign, because they are a physical credential in the possession of the person concerned. The government cannot stop this credential from being used except by physically confiscating it or by waiting (years) for it to expire. Distributed storage in action. The UK's proposal makes the "digital ID" a pointer to an entry in a centralized database. This database is the definitive record of what you are allowed to do or not do (like reside and work). Which can be changed or deleted at the stroke of a key, through human error or malice. Then what? When (not if) the database becomes an attribute store across a wider scope, the implications are scary. The "digital ID" as set out today can't work for its ostensible purpose. Therefore its actual purpose isn't being declared. Not hard to connect the dots.
- philipallstar 1y ago
  I'm against the ID, but the more good faith reason for a database entry is it should eliminate fake IDs.
  - protimewaster 1y ago
    Doesn't a physically held digital ID also do that? Assuming the encryption is strong, verifying that the data on the ID has the proper cryptographic signature should provide assurance that the ID is real, shouldn't it? I guess, depending on how it's implemented, maybe an ID could be cloned and still appear valid, but that seems like a possibility for the UK's approach as well (the clone would just point to the same database entry).
    - philipallstar 1y ago
      Yes, I think you're probably right. But it still solves other problems such as "the app is a lookalike". If the app is basically an ID delivery mechanism that allows an operator to call up your photo, it becomes a relatively foolproof way to identify you accurately.
    - grues-dinner 1y ago
      In a good modern implementation, it should be extremely hard to produce a physical card with an authenticated pointer to the database, because that would be also signed. But considering that they've been retiring things like biometric residence cards in favour of web-based systems, it's possible there will be no physical component.
jama211 1y ago
I accept all these valid points, but don’t they already know exactly who we are and have a digital file on us already? I mean, I have a drivers licence and a home address and an internet connection I typically don’t use a vpn on. There’s no way they don’t have all this already right?
- crimsoneer 1y ago
  They do but it's all disconnected, migrants don't have it, and it makes delivering government services a massive pain.
  - jama211 1y ago
    Doesn’t seem so bad then
lacy_tinpot 1y ago
If a State can't be trusted with data of its citizens it can't be trusted with passports, birth certificates, or any numerous other instances of identity. Being able to identify citizens is basic and essential to the functioning of a State whereby the failure to do means the total failure of the State. In effect the State is no longer a State and is in fact entirely dysfunctional.
dfxm12 1y ago
With all the cameras and phone tracking you've brought up, what does the ID give to the government that they don't already have? I get where you're coming from; I think about this myself. However, I usually come to the conclusion that concern around this is being penny wise but pound foolish, considering both the point you've brought up and also that I have a tracking device in my pocket with me at all times that already keeps track of where I am, what I'm doing and what I'm thinking. I don't really trust Google, Apple, etc. any more than the government. I've also seen governments punish people extrajudicially (or just trump up charges) when they want to, without this.
puppycodes 1y ago
Once its there it will almost certainly never be rolled back. Freedom is incompatible with the UK.
Havoc 1y ago
Uk has a lot of cameras sure but the vast majority of them look like 360p tech frankly
louthy 1y ago
Get a grip. Everybody in the UK already has a National Insurance number and NHS number, and most have either a driving license or passport — all the elements of national identity are already in place. This is just FUD.
- aembleton 1y ago
  So why is another form of ID needed?
selfmodruntime 1y ago
> Why? Because the state has already shown it can’t be trusted with our data. No state can ever be trusted with this amount of data. Governments change. Someday, there will be a government in charge that you will disagree with.
77pt77 1y ago
[dead]
adolph 1y ago
> I'm certain it's worked well in other countries, but I have zero trust in the UK government to handle this responsibility. This commenter may sound like a paranoid person (and may very well be, I don't know them) but read about the way the UK government handled an IT error in post office accounting software. Someone living there has good reason to not trust the powers that be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal
- Arch-TK 1y ago
  Horizon is the cherry on top.
clickety_clack 1y ago
The fact is that no government can be trusted because they are not permanent. If a previous government had instituted, the current one would not be rolling it back. The loss of rights is like a ratchet: it only goes one way, click by click.
2wrist 1y ago
Hard agree. Also, is the data secure? Who else has access to that data? Will I be protected if I am in this system? If they were open about the system, it would be one thing, but they never are. It is funny how this has cropped up gain after the recent pow wow with the yanks and the tech companies.
HeartofCPU 1y ago
‚ A secure, optional digital ID could be useful.‘ but never in the hands of a state.
didntknowyou 1y ago
more concerning is they will be contracting the project to a private company, with links to the previous PM
martin82 1y ago
It doesn't work in any country, ever. NO government can be trusted with data and with too much power (which go hand in hand). This has always been the case and will always be the case.
jnxx 1y ago
There is another technical reason: A digital ID requires essentially a digital signature running on a secure device (for example, a smart card). Thus it implements public key cryptocraphy. Which makes confidentiality and integrity of computing two inseparable sides of the same medal. You simply cannot break confidentiality of communication without practically breaking integrity of digital signatures at the same time. (Otherwise, a user, for example could generate a fresh random public key, sign it with their digital id, and send it to any communications partner). Breaking this in turn means that the government can sign on behalf of you, without your knowledge. Human communication is based on symbols and whatever the means are to transport these symbols, cannot work without trust.

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.

jonex 1y ago
It's the difference between proportional voting vs winner takes it all. In the latter case you can't really hold politicians accountable, as you will have to choose between effectively throwing your vote away or voting for the one opposition candidate, that often will be just as bad. While the UK have some level of representativeness, each circuit has a winner takes it all structure, making change quite hard to achieve on a larger scale.
- HPsquared 1y ago
  This might be a "grass is greener" thing. Do elected representatives actually have higher approval rating, or enact policies that better fit with public opinion, under proportional systems? Sure it'd probably make things a little better, but it won't actually solve anything hard, I think. All Western countries are struggling (and mostly failing) to deal with the same problems regardless of details like electoral system.
  - ghusto 1y ago
    With proportionate representation you get what _should_ happen, in my opinion, which is sometimes nothing. If the coalition can't decide on something, then it doesn't happen, which is the correct outcome because not enough people agree about it. It represents the people (who also can not agree on it). The alternative is a decision that most people don't agree with.
    - HPsquared 1y ago
      My view is it's always organised elites making the decisions, no matter the system. Nominally left-wing parties often make brazen right-wing moves, and vice-versa. The votes that matter are those of the MPs, Congress members etc. which are always influenced by a range of factors and organised factions. That's the actual decision-making mechanism.
      - actionfromafar 1y ago

pmontra 1y ago

Italy has got an ID card since forever. Of course it was a piece of paper, it's a piece of plastic with a chip now. There is some experimentation to move that into the state app. Everything accelerates when it becomes digital, for the better or for the worse. One thing that an ID does not do is preventing crime and allowing only legal jobs. People find a lot of ways to circumvent the rules as long as there are money to earn.

sterlind 1y ago
do those state apps use Play Integrity on Android? will you be required to lock yourself into Apple or Google's walled garden in order to be a citizen?
- pmontra 1y ago
  No idea, I never installed it. I can do everything from my web browser.

iamnothere 1y ago

But don’t you understand, it will be so convenient. Just imagine the convenience! Are you opposed to convenience? Frankly, you’re just being paranoid. It’s possible that mandatory digital ID could be abused, but officials haven’t yet announced their intentions to abuse it. So why are you so worried? You’re already tracked everywhere you go, and many countries already have this system. It seems to work well there for keeping people in line. Do you have something to hide? Seems a little suspicious, no? (Did I miss any talking points?)

array_key_first 1y ago
> officials haven’t yet announced their intentions to abuse it. This one is my favorite. I don't know if it's just unthinkable naivety or a misunderstanding of how bad actors work, but it boggles my mind that this type of reasoning is often one of the top arguments I hear.
- baobun 1y ago
  The post office scandal wasn't that long ago, even. How can you blame people for doubting the ability to keep integrity of the system and that it won't be abused and that any abuse or incidents won't be covered up? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Muromec 1y ago
>(Did I miss any talking points?) Silently pointing out to the whole world that does this already and nothing scary happened that can't happen otherwise. The only reason we have ids is the borders and codified inequality anyway. I can't go to certain places with one id and can go there with the other. In some specific places I can go in, but would not be able to get out. Somehow I haven't seen a lot of intersection between people who believe we should not have borders and people who believe we should not have ids.
1y ago

nostrademons 1y ago

I wonder if zkSTARKS could help here. Prove that the validity of a statement (like "I am a citizen that is authorized to receive benefits") without revealing your precise identity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interactive_zero-knowledge_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interactive_zero-knowledge...

teddyh 1y ago
This would be great and all, but all parties who are in a position to choose to implement this kind of system or to keep the status quo are already motivated to keep (and expand) the existing systems, for any number of reasons. Everybody (except the end users) loves to keep that juicy metadata and incidental logs of everything. (Repost from 2021: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26560821 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26560821>)
- nostrademons 1y ago
  It's worth designing a system of government that works for everybody, if only for the simple reason that we will very shortly (if we don't already) have a system that works for nobody, and likely everybody shooting everybody else will follow soon after that. A utopia at least gives people something to shoot for, and if you get very lucky you might end up with an idealist in power who's willing to give it a shot.
grues-dinner 1y ago
That's basically how the existing share code system works for non-citizens. You the worker ask the government for a share code. You provide that to the prospective employer and they can check that it is valid. The same or similar system can be used for driving license validity. The digital ID is presumably (this is my pulling a guess from my rear end, but if I had to implement it, I'd use the existing system) an extension to cover citizens too. In fact, in principle of that's how it works, it will marginally improve privacy because current status quo is basically that citizens provide their passport to the employer to demonstrate right to work via citizenship. I also assume that the universal use of a single system means that spot-checking any workers status becomes easier. Currently if police, say, to use a common example, stop a food delivery rider and ask for their right to work they can say they're a citizen and just don't have ID on them. The UK has long derided the idea of everyone being expected to have ID with them with phrases like "papieren bitte", but it does mean that the authorities basically cannot check working statuses unless there's a physical workplace they can raid. Which is a weakness app-platforms and many people without the right to work have figured out. A cynic might think that that kind of problem sounds a lot like a problem the government could already have solved in several other ways, but by letting it fester might finally garner public acceptance for the universal ID system they've always wanted.

qazwsxedchac 1y ago

The ID cards as realized in many other countries are comparatively benign, because they are a physical credential in the possession of the person concerned. The government cannot stop this credential from being used except by physically confiscating it or by waiting (years) for it to expire. Distributed storage in action. The UK's proposal makes the "digital ID" a pointer to an entry in a centralized database. This database is the definitive record of what you are allowed to do or not do (like reside and work). Which can be changed or deleted at the stroke of a key, through human error or malice. Then what? When (not if) the database becomes an attribute store across a wider scope, the implications are scary. The "digital ID" as set out today can't work for its ostensible purpose. Therefore its actual purpose isn't being declared. Not hard to connect the dots.

philipallstar 1y ago
I'm against the ID, but the more good faith reason for a database entry is it should eliminate fake IDs.
- protimewaster 1y ago
  Doesn't a physically held digital ID also do that? Assuming the encryption is strong, verifying that the data on the ID has the proper cryptographic signature should provide assurance that the ID is real, shouldn't it? I guess, depending on how it's implemented, maybe an ID could be cloned and still appear valid, but that seems like a possibility for the UK's approach as well (the clone would just point to the same database entry).
  - philipallstar 1y ago
    Yes, I think you're probably right. But it still solves other problems such as "the app is a lookalike". If the app is basically an ID delivery mechanism that allows an operator to call up your photo, it becomes a relatively foolproof way to identify you accurately.
  - grues-dinner 1y ago
    In a good modern implementation, it should be extremely hard to produce a physical card with an authenticated pointer to the database, because that would be also signed. But considering that they've been retiring things like biometric residence cards in favour of web-based systems, it's possible there will be no physical component.

jama211 1y ago

I accept all these valid points, but don’t they already know exactly who we are and have a digital file on us already? I mean, I have a drivers licence and a home address and an internet connection I typically don’t use a vpn on. There’s no way they don’t have all this already right?

crimsoneer 1y ago
They do but it's all disconnected, migrants don't have it, and it makes delivering government services a massive pain.
- jama211 1y ago
  Doesn’t seem so bad then

lacy_tinpot 1y ago

If a State can't be trusted with data of its citizens it can't be trusted with passports, birth certificates, or any numerous other instances of identity. Being able to identify citizens is basic and essential to the functioning of a State whereby the failure to do means the total failure of the State. In effect the State is no longer a State and is in fact entirely dysfunctional.

dfxm12 1y ago

With all the cameras and phone tracking you've brought up, what does the ID give to the government that they don't already have? I get where you're coming from; I think about this myself. However, I usually come to the conclusion that concern around this is being penny wise but pound foolish, considering both the point you've brought up and also that I have a tracking device in my pocket with me at all times that already keeps track of where I am, what I'm doing and what I'm thinking. I don't really trust Google, Apple, etc. any more than the government. I've also seen governments punish people extrajudicially (or just trump up charges) when they want to, without this.

puppycodes 1y ago

Once its there it will almost certainly never be rolled back. Freedom is incompatible with the UK.

Havoc 1y ago

Uk has a lot of cameras sure but the vast majority of them look like 360p tech frankly

louthy 1y ago

Get a grip. Everybody in the UK already has a National Insurance number and NHS number, and most have either a driving license or passport — all the elements of national identity are already in place. This is just FUD.

aembleton 1y ago
So why is another form of ID needed?

selfmodruntime 1y ago

> Why? Because the state has already shown it can’t be trusted with our data. No state can ever be trusted with this amount of data. Governments change. Someday, there will be a government in charge that you will disagree with.

77pt77 1y ago

[dead]

adolph 1y ago

> I'm certain it's worked well in other countries, but I have zero trust in the UK government to handle this responsibility. This commenter may sound like a paranoid person (and may very well be, I don't know them) but read about the way the UK government handled an IT error in post office accounting software. Someone living there has good reason to not trust the powers that be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal

Arch-TK 1y ago
Horizon is the cherry on top.

clickety_clack 1y ago

The fact is that no government can be trusted because they are not permanent. If a previous government had instituted, the current one would not be rolling it back. The loss of rights is like a ratchet: it only goes one way, click by click.

2wrist 1y ago

Hard agree. Also, is the data secure? Who else has access to that data? Will I be protected if I am in this system? If they were open about the system, it would be one thing, but they never are. It is funny how this has cropped up gain after the recent pow wow with the yanks and the tech companies.

HeartofCPU 1y ago

‚ A secure, optional digital ID could be useful.‘ but never in the hands of a state.

didntknowyou 1y ago

more concerning is they will be contracting the project to a private company, with links to the previous PM

martin82 1y ago

It doesn't work in any country, ever. NO government can be trusted with data and with too much power (which go hand in hand). This has always been the case and will always be the case.

jnxx 1y ago

There is another technical reason: A digital ID requires essentially a digital signature running on a secure device (for example, a smart card). Thus it implements public key cryptocraphy. Which makes confidentiality and integrity of computing two inseparable sides of the same medal. You simply cannot break confidentiality of communication without practically breaking integrity of digital signatures at the same time. (Otherwise, a user, for example could generate a fresh random public key, sign it with their digital id, and send it to any communications partner). Breaking this in turn means that the government can sign on behalf of you, without your knowledge. Human communication is based on symbols and whatever the means are to transport these symbols, cannot work without trust.