12 ms·

UK Petition: Do not introduce Digital ID cards

313 points by DamonHD 1y ago

SilverElfin 1y ago
After seeing NUMEROUS video of UK police showing up at doorsteps like the gestapo, arresting or citing or intimidating people who are simply practicing free speech, I don’t think anyone should support the government with a pathway to de-anonymize the web. Even if you support the current government, such powers will be used against you at some point.
- n4r9 1y ago
  I wonder how much you're loading into "simply practicing free speech".
  - flir 1y ago
    Look, I didn't mean someone should actually burn down the building with the occupants still inside. It was satire!
  - kimixa 1y ago
    The last one that made the rounds here ended up being carefully cut to give a specific impression (and the initial presented commentary straight up lies), and when the "full story" came out it turned out to be a lot less "simply practicing free speech" than implied. But retractions never get the same visibility, and it's already made the impression they wanted the post to make. Not a great site but gives the gist: https://www.newsweek.com/british-police-explain-video-officers-investigating-social-media-use-2133274 https://www.newsweek.com/british-police-explain-video-office...
    - n4r9 1y ago
      Might not be what you're referring to, but: a couple of months ago a user posted this comment [0] claiming the linked video showed police offices arresting and threatening to jail an old grandmother in the middle of the night, simply for "liking facebook posts the gov doesn’t like" Needless to say there were no arrests, no jail time, not even threats of jail time, it was 1:30pm, the woman was 54 years old, and she had posted comments calling for a councillor's resignation. There's an argument in there about whether councillors have a bit too much influence on local police behaviour. But it gets drowned out by hyperbole, embellishment, and an over-eagerness to link it all up to a nation-wide conspiracy. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44593022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44593022
  - SilverElfin 1y ago
    Go watch the videos and look up what was said. Most of them are clearly normal non violent free speech, but just politically not aligned to the current government’s platform. I’m not saying all are just doing free speech but am confident about most.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - n4r9 1y ago
      In my experience, when someone has an extreme opinion and says "just watch this video", it's largely a waste of time. Video is too easily game-able as a medium.
      - beeflet 1y ago
        Good thinking, you wouldn't want to expose yourself to extreme opinions. Come to think of it, when are we going to ban dangerous assault thoughts? Not everyone has a mind big enough for radical ideas of that caliber.
        n4r9 1y ago
        I'm open to a broad range of opinions. I'm less open to arguments hinging on watching a video. Especially if they won't even link to one.
  - cortic 1y ago
    It is a criminal offense in the UK to use insulting words in public, or to send any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive (whether any one does or not is irreverent). The Online Safety Act and Hate Crime Provision have extended these somewhat into the realms of 1984. But the police do tend to use them sparingly.
    - teamonkey 1y ago
      > It is a criminal offense in the UK to use insulting words in public, or to send any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive (whether any one does or not is irreverent). This is categorically untrue.
      - oncallthrow 1y ago
        The latter part at least is true. Sending "grossly offensive" messages is illegal under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003, specifically Section 127: > a person is guilty of an offence if he— > (a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or > (b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent. I suspect the former is also true, but am not well-read in that area
        teamonkey 1y ago
        [flagged]
        oncallthrow 1y ago
        > “Grossly offensive” is absolutely not the same thing as “any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive”. There is no statutory definition of “grossly”, so in effect it is the same. There is prior art for it being interpreted incredibly widely. Not to mention the other incredibly vague adjectives in the law. > Correct https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html “Don’t be snarky”.
  - oncallthrow 1y ago
    In many cases the “free speech” genuinely is racial hatred bordering on incitement. But on the other hand there genuinely have been many people arrested (and in some cases convicted) under these laws for statements that are shockingly milquetoast.
    - kimixa 1y ago
      > But on the other hand there genuinely have been many people arrested (and in some cases convicted) under these laws for statements that are shockingly milquetoast. Care to name some? The vast majority of cases I've looked into end up being a lot more than the initially presented "They Were Arrested For Saying Bad Words On The Internet!" story pushed on the internet. In fact, I can't remember a single one where there wasn't a lot more, but that's not really more than anecdote.
      - oncallthrow 1y ago
        https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-46959556?app-referrer=deep-linkm https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-46959556... is one example of a successful prosecution. There are many more cases of harassment by the police or arrests, the most recent example that comes to mind being Graham Linehan. These are clearly not as bad as prosecutions, but still create a chilling effect.
        n4r9 1y ago
        Linehan was arrested for inciting violence. He encouraged people to punch trans women.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        wastle 1y ago
        [flagged]
      - jdietrich 1y ago
- raesene9 1y ago
  If you're looking for evidence of the UK gov's authoritarian tendencies, you don't need to go looking at videos on Youtube, just look at the number of arrests of peaceful protestors who were given charges under terrorism legislation for holding up banners or wearing T-Shirts mentioning "Palestine Action" (ref https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/25/fate-of-hundreds-arrested-for-alleged-palestine-action-support-in-limbo-if-challenge-to-ban-is-blocked-court-told https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/25/fate-of-hund...). Or indeed in one notable case the person who was arrested for a T-Shirt about "Plasticine action"
  - ChocolateGod 1y ago
    They're supporting a specific group that went into a military base and damaged military equipment (that was irrelevant to palestine/israel), those people going out with those T-Shirts know exactly why the group was proscribed and are seeking to be arrested, why are we shocked they got arrested, they wanted it.
    - raesene9 1y ago
      Put it this way, the UK managed to get through the troubles, which had a lot of events far more serious than what Palestine action have done, without needing this level of policing of free speech. The point I was making is that successive UK gov's are tending towards authoritarianism, the current one included.
      - Barrin92 1y ago
        If you're trying to convince Brits not to enact these policies "you guys made it through The Troubles" is a really bad argument unless you're very unfamiliar with the body count and terror and the public perception of that period in British history. (it included some fifty thousand casualties and sixteen thousand bombings) An advocate of these policies would quite literally argue that not getting into something like The Troubles is the point and a lot of people would agree if that was what is on the horizon.
- mhh__ 1y ago
  Tweets - prison Assaulting and trying to stab a man burning a Quran - Suspended sentence https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8xr12yx5l4o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8xr12yx5l4o watch the video and tell me this man should be A) not in prison and B) in the country after said prison sentence
  - Stevvo 1y ago
    Any young man would probably get an attempted murder charge for that. Very incendiary ruling; sort of thing that could start a riot.
    - mhh__ 1y ago
      Policing by consent admits an arbitrage whereby one simply refuses Anarchotyranny
- userbinator 1y ago
  AIUI "practicing free speech" is mainly a US thing that doesn't map cleanly to other countries.
  - beeflet 1y ago
    It should
    - n4r9 1y ago
      Why?
- FridayoLeary 1y ago
  What is actually going on with that? It feels like over the last 2 years the British police have decided to see what it's like being the stasi. Most of the msm are faithfully avoiding mentioning how authoritarian the police have become. The odd thing is they are not even necessarily propping up a political regime, although again it feels like they are getting some of their instructions directly from kier starmers mind, but they are arresting people for being mean on twitter. It's really odd and no matter what side of the political divide you are on you should be disturbed.
dijit 1y ago
As well as the Estonia eID system works (aside from that time it got hacked[0] and that other time they leaked all the photos[1]) and how well a digital (non-government) system works in Scandinavia… I have to say… As a Dual British/Swedish Citizen, I really do not trust the UK government. They have proven over and over and over, that at every opportunity presented they will increase their own authority. I don’t believe I have personally witnessed any other advanced economy that so ardently marches towards authoritarianism. So, no matter if it’s a good idea or not. I can’t in good faith advise the UK having more powers. Unfortunately the UK government themselves can sort of just grant themselves more power. So… [0]: https://e-estonia.com/card-security-risk/ https://e-estonia.com/card-security-risk/ [1]: https://therecord.media/estonia-says-a-hacker-downloaded-286000-id-photos-from-government-database https://therecord.media/estonia-says-a-hacker-downloaded-286...
- mothballed 1y ago
  Many of the former colonies of the UK have chosen to secede from the UK. Is there any chance England might too?
  - dijit 1y ago
    No, English people still somehow tie their identity to the UK Government somehow. Scotland will not be granted another independence vote for at least 15 years, despite the last one being build upon a house of lies and nobody knows anything about what the Welsh think. I do think we’re witnessing the collapse of the UK, but more like a Roman Empire collapse - as in it’s happening over decades. Dying with a whimper, not a bang.
    - Bender 1y ago
      Scotland needs to reinstate their king and conquer England to right the wrongs.
      - wizzwizz4 1y ago
        That already happened: James VI of Scotland inherited the English (and Irish) throne. There's a pedantic sense in which the current English king is actually the Scottish king, not the other way around (although stronger pedantry would say the Hanoverian succession is sufficient to prove that whole line of reasoning a load of tosh). What would restoring the Scottish monarchy mean to you?
nprateem 1y ago
[flagged]
- ZiiS 1y ago
  Are you suggesting A&E should not treat you if you are unluckly enough to land on your phone as you get run over etc? Or that prescription fraud cost anything close to what the government will spend implementing a major new IT system?
  - nprateem 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - blitzar 1y ago
    > Are you suggesting Unironically a majority in the UK would say they "are demanding it happen"
whitehexagon 1y ago
Signed, but I guess it is gonna be one of those where they keep asking until they get the answer they want. Where is the counter bill to block all future attempts of such privacy invading bills. Can the public draft new legislation like that? If so please ensures it blocks any dependency on smart phone ownership or other bigtech services.
- tialaramex 1y ago
  Unlike the ludicrous US system with a "written constitution" that basically means a handful of unelected people get to overide all laws and say they're just "interpreting" as they ignore the plain words, the clear intent or any other obstacle to their Imperial Decree, the Parliament is literally Sovereign. So, if Parliament passes a Law tomorrow, miraculously by unanimous consent saying "The UK shall never have Digital ID" and insisting it denies itself any ability to make a law introducing such a thing - at any point it can also, despite that, pass law making a Digital ID by the narrowest majority, for example the day after. In fact not so very long ago this exact farce played out. The Liberal Democrats were in a situation where they could either join a coalition with the larger Conservative party and form a government or they could say "No" and likely the populace has to do another election. Popular understanding was that British people hate elections, and so if you insist on another one they will punish you, the Lib Dems did not want that. But, they were concerned that the Tories would betray them (predictably) So hence the 2011 "Fixed Term Parliaments Act". But although the Act says you can't just end parliament without a term ending, obviously Parliament can just pass a new law saying nah, changed our mind, which is what the 2019 "Early Parliamentary General Election Act" does and then the 2022 "Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act" undid the whole pointless mess. Parliamentary sovereignty might be able to take on limits via some sort of tradition over a long period. For example perhaps if Parliament had stuck with that Fixed Term rule for a few hundred years - it'd settle as "Just how it is" and there'd be a serious argument that you can't just pass a law saying just this once as an exception we'll hold elections early. But "It was a few years ago" clearly doesn't cut it and that's what you would need for such a "counter bill". The best you can hope for is a pledge by politicians, which is worth slightly less than a piece of paper you wrote it on.
  - 1y ago
poszlem 1y ago
Have any of those petitions ever changed anything? I might as well shout 'I don’t want a digital ID' down the toilet, it’d be just as effective. And that’s coming from someone who’s against digital IDs.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
  > Have any of those petitions ever changed anything? What's the alternative? Not do anything and hope things change by themselves? Has that worked in the past? Is doing something than better nothing?
  - luke727 1y ago
    Signing an online petition isn't better than doing nothing and is arguably worse.
  - dazc 1y ago
    Well, 2 million plus have signed the petition and 90% of those people will go along with the scheme when it is introduced - because it will be convenient to do so. Tell me how you plan to survive living off-grid whilst standing firm against it.
redeyedtreefrog 1y ago
France, Germany, Sweden, Estonia and India already have government id. However, this being hackernews there will never be a link to a well researched article on the pros and cons of introducing id cards (digital or otherwise), only conspiracy theories and confident declarations that id cards are a surefire symbol of authoritarian states. I don't know what I think, I lack sufficient knowledge to have an opinion. But I still know approximately 10,000x more about UK politics, economics and immigration than 99% of the people commenting here.
- dazc 1y ago
  The root of the issue is a mistrust of a Govt that has suddenly decided to rush through something, that was never discussed prior to the election, on the grounds that it will tackle illegal immigration, which it clearly will not.
- hollow-moe 1y ago
  France Identité app is closed source, requires GMS and Play Integrity, and is only available on closed stores. It is not yet mandatory but who knows when it'll happen. No thanks.
AJRF 1y ago
The labour government can not be challenged in any serious way until the next election in 4 years. Petitions don't really do anything, they will just say "no" to what the people ask for and move on with their agenda. It is disheartening to see this country follow the same path the US took, it seems as our politics become more polarised, the team sports aspect means we start seeing parties push through agendas while putting their fingers in their ears. It's so easy for a politician to point score by shooting down dissent as "the other side thinks this is bad, so it means it's good". The stated goal of Digital ID is to reduce illegal migrants from working, getting housing and using services. The obvious issue here is that they don't use traditional means to do this today, and it won't change with the introduction of this. They already hide from the state. If we had decent opposition they'd try to kill this by mandating it HAD to be used for voting, which Labour will absolutely not want. I would say 95% of my friend group were not born in this country, and the changes this government are making are pushing them to want to leave, and they are here legally, they have high paying jobs and skills and they feel unwanted. For the first time in my life it seems like it makes sense to join them.
- mytailorisrich 1y ago
  Regarding tackling illegal immigration the issue is that there are already ample and sufficients checks mandated by law so this would not change anything. Indeed the main issue is that there are dodgy employers and landlords who simply flunk the law and would oviously continue to do so and ignore Digital IDs all the same. Digital IDs would also be de facto mandatory for the majority of adult residents based on what they would be required for despite the government very clumsily saying otherwise. The government is simply being dishonest here so that should arouse suspicion...
  - Spivak 1y ago
    > Indeed the main issue is that there are dodgy employers and landlords who simply flunk the law I'm surprised that this is your framing, I don't think I would hesitate to offer a willing tenant or otherwise good employee a job because of their legal status. Mostly just on principle, it's not my job to be an arm of the state and I resent being deputized. They're physically here in my town, better they have somewhere to live and a means of supporting themselves rather than being homeless. If the state wants to find and deport them they can do it themselves on their own time.
dmazin 1y ago
The thing that frustrates me the most about digital ID cards is not themselves on merit but rather modern Labour's political abilities. Like, the UK economy is stagnant, there is a cost-of-living crisis, and Labour needs to present the public with an alternative to Farage. And the answer is... digital ID cards?
- VBprogrammer 1y ago
  Completely agree. I'm not too bothered Digital ID cards, I was mildly annoyed by the idea of actual ID cards (manly the cost) but as a free digital app, I don't have many objections. I've seen it from colleagues in Denmark. If they manage to build in some zero knowledge proof of age I might even support it. But how this is supposed to stop immigration, illegal or otherwise, is beyond me.
  - bossyTeacher 1y ago
    I think about 90% of immigration to UK is legal so it won't. Seems like a huge expense when money is really tight
  - dmazin 1y ago
    Why should we stop immigration?
    - VBprogrammer 1y ago
      I mean it's obvious to anyone who isn't an idiot that we shouldn't. However, populist parties banging the drum on this are looking likely to be at least the second biggest party in the next general election (and that comes with some wishful thinking given the recent polls). Labour's approach seems to be to validate their scaremongering but to claim they can deal with it without going full on Third Reich...
      - dmazin 1y ago
        Oh, yes, I understand. Yeah, if this is meant to speak to Reform voters, it’s really unclear if it actually makes sense to them or anyone if this is actually an immigration thing.
_trampeltier 1y ago
Just today Switzerland said YES to E-ID https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/votes/20250928/e-id-act.html https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/votes/202509...
- flowerthoughts 1y ago
  50.39% yes. Wow, that's the closest I've seen here.
  - 1over137 1y ago
    With a mere 49.55% turnout.
- widgeyboy 1y ago
  But fortunately "Use of the e-ID is voluntary..." in their case. Whereas in the UK it's being pushed as a (for all intents and purposes) mandatory thing.
nickslaughter02 1y ago
Prediction: > The Government has no plans to stop the introduction of Digital ID cards, and is working closely with companies to implement it as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903
- nickslaughter02 1y ago
  Four days later: > We will introduce a digital ID within this Parliament to help tackle illegal migration, make accessing government services easier, and enable wider efficiencies. We will consult on details soon. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45461391 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45461391
mhotchen 1y ago
It almost feels predestined for this to not solve the problems at hand, overrun on costs and timelines (furthering the first point), in no way streamline existing processes or cut costs, leave behind parts of society, and present security vulnerabilities that can be capitalised on through either social engineering or malware (also furthering the first point, only now citizens will be accused of tax fraud) I hate to be pessimistic and there are elements of the idea I like, but when reflecting on the issues at hand this feels like popping the toaster because you smell burnt toast, but the rest of the house is on fire
- IMSAI8080 1y ago
  Indeed. It'll be a gravy train for one of the usual big consulting companies. Billions of much needed cash will be wasted and nothing of any value will be achieved. This ID system is touted as somehow stopping illegal boat crossings (the current political hot topic in the UK) because it will apparently somehow stop illegal work. This is obvious nonsense. Employers are already supposed to do ID checks and face heavy fines for employing illegal workers. Illegal employers obviously don't bother with such checks and pay cash in hand. They will continue not to bother doing any such checks, with or without ID cards. A great deal of illegal work is actually caused by arm's-length employers such as food delivery apps and other similar platforms. These companies already do fairly robust ID checks. What happens though is people rent out their accounts (often for surprisingly small amounts of money) with the ID check already passed to illegals who actually do the work. The problem is nothing to do with ID checks, it's the fact that the employer never sees the employee in person and doesn't verify on a day-to-day basis who is actually completing the work.
theginger 1y ago
This appears to be backfiring spectacularly. It is a shame in many ways because a decent digital ID system would be very beneficial. The problem is the approach is completely wrong. There are already 10+ competing ID system which are now largely digital. A solution on how to bring all that together done well could make things significantly more secure by reducing the attack surface and make it much more reliable. Instead it looks like they are going for 1 more competing system, the implementation of which will be steered by politics and ideology rather than technology and technical requirements.
panstromek 1y ago
I don't understand the problem. How is this different from all other identifiers, physical or digital, that most goverments already have?
- dazc 1y ago
  The likelihood that it will become tied to your bank account, credit file, etc in a way which isn't currently possible with physical forms of id such as passports and driving licences.
  - hchdifnfbgbf 1y ago
    How isn’t that currently possible? In America, your bank is already required to keep a semi-permanent record of your state issued identification for anti-money laundering/terrorism financing reasons. I can see concerns about it becoming a widely used form of SSO, potentially even mandated, and that destroying privacy. However, banks and credit are cases where you already do not have that privacy, so they don’t seem like a very compelling example to point to.
    - dazc 1y ago
      In the UK, your bank will have a copy of your id to prove they carried out basic id checks - it currently ends there.
      - blitzar 1y ago
        The bank can, will and do report transactions to the government as well as annual interest etc to hmrc - as far as I am aware they use national insurance numbers in those reportings.
  - tikkabhuna 1y ago
    I’m pretty sure UK security services can link bank accounts to you already. Hell, credit score companies like Experian already do it. This is beneficial for public services and companies that need to identify you. Having a single ID for a person is a huge improvement. As an example, when we got married, my wife was simultaneously both her maiden name and my surname. There is absolutely no link between passport, birth certificate, driving license, etc. You have to go around to all these different organisations and have them update the details. They all have different requirements for updating the name. Having a single consistent mechanism for referring to a person in systems seems hugely beneficial for both the organisation and the person.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
uyzstvqs 1y ago
We need to clearly define some stuff around Digital ID, since people seem to be using the term for distinctly different things. There's (1) eGovernment platforms, where you can handle government-related business online using a login. There's (2) Digital ID cards, where you can use your phone in place of a physical ID or drivers license in real life. And then there's (3) full EU-proposed-style Digital ID, where government wants to act as a SSO provider for private online services, like social media. Yet someone can be rightfully criticizing (3), as it would pose a major risk to online privacy, and someone else barges in with "here in [place] we have a great eGovernment platform which is very useful for filing your taxes online, I don't see why you'd oppose that". Not specifically in this thread, it's been noticeable over almost all Digital ID-related discussions in the past. Please be considerate of that. This appears to be about (2), with the catch of it being made mandatory for anyone who wants to be employed in the UK.
- dazc 1y ago
  "This appears to be about (2), with the catch of it being made mandatory for anyone who wants to be employed in the UK." For people who are already working illegally, or plan to, it would change nothing, as they could dodge any checks by sub-contracting through someone who seems to be legally employed. The government cannot be so daft as to ignore how much illegal work happens this way, so there has to be some larger scheme at play here.
- suyash 1y ago
  There are already systems to check immigration status "Right to Work" in the UK that employer can use to check any immigratants current status.
- graemep 1y ago
  The suspicion is that the government will introduce it as (2) but it will be extended to replace physical ID, especially as the government has discussed making driving licences digital. On top of that once introduced it is likely that you will need to provide ID for more things, possibly including (3).
- tmtvl 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
armchairhacker 1y ago
Is there a technological way to make an ID that's anonymous and irrevocable (since arguably people should never lose citizenship)? Because digital, national ID has major benefits (prevents fraud, reduces paperwork), but yeah, those are IMO larger drawbacks.
- userbinator 1y ago
  "ID" and "anonymous" are exact opposites.
  - armchairhacker 1y ago
    Not necessarily, by "ID" I mean certificate that proves you're a citizen, adult, and owner of [specific thing] (to a service that manages [specific thing], without letting them deduce anything else you own). That can be done without identifying you e.g. via ZKP. Although the ID should also be irrevocable, yet could easily be stolen... Perhaps the solution is to give local municipals (e.g. neighborhoods) the power to generate, revoke, and authenticate IDs. The textbook surveillance state seems to always be a large organization; neighborhoods can be problematic, but I suspect it happens less often, because they're much easier to influence (and overthrow the "leaders" of) than big governments. So e.g. if a national bank wants to know if a user's provided credentials (name, address, etc.) are accurate, it asks their city such a user is one of their residents; the city knows what services the resident uses and can (if malicious) block them, but the government can only track the services of all residents in a city, and must block entire cities (which, if they band together, require smaller numbers to challenge the government; in a large country like the US, there would be extra layers such as states, so that no layer significantly overpowers a group of several of the layer below).
vitorgrs 1y ago
As a Brazilian, it's pretty weird when I see that countries like UK or the U.S don't have national IDs. Here that would be seen as a completely insane.
- Ylpertnodi 1y ago
  Has (everyone) having an ID stop crime?
  - vitorgrs 1y ago
    I didn't even mention crime. Not sure why this question. Obviously it doesn't stop all crimes, probably helps on some. Just saying how there is a very different culture, where no one see having an ID as something weird and invasive.
t43562 1y ago
I think it would be nice not to have to prove identity and address repeatedly with lots of paper utility bills. As for abuse by authority: well don't elect a populist party then. If you do it won't matter what defenses you think you have.
- Avamander 1y ago
  Utility bills as verification have always been weird to me. How is that actual proof? I can't see how that doesn't cut off more of the populace than having a national ID would. Assuming it's an issue as mentioned a few times here in comments.
4ndrewl 1y ago
It's difficult to understand how one of the least popular governments of recent times are going in hard on one of the least popular policies (in the UK) in recent times.
- KoolKat23 1y ago
  Distraction. You're debating the policy now, not the people.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
puppycodes 1y ago
Oh hell yes two million signatures lets gooooo. Finally some inspiring movement on this front.
- cedws 1y ago
  It’s a lot of signatures but the petition against the Online Safety Act got 500k and the response was basically just “lolno.” What’s the point of democracy if the people say no and the government does it anyway?
  - puppycodes 1y ago
    Ugh... True. Thats what I get for having a moment of hope. Lesson learned lol.
sega_sai 1y ago
To me it's a question of benefits vs drawbacks. In my understanding ID cards are beneficial for 1) Running government services 2) Fraud prevention 3) Some immigration control (as at least some reason why people try to migrate to UK is lax document checks) Some people argue that it's somehow becomes authoritarian, when you have an ID card. I personally don't buy that as most of us have already passports, NI numbers etc, so all the security cervices if need be have access to that. Obviously if people start to engage with hypotheticals, that these cards will be used to check whether you can access internet etc, I agree, that would be dangerous, but that is not being proposed. Also the argument that implementing it will take a lot of money and will never be done is not a convincing one, as in that case one should not really try to do anything in this country.
jen729w 1y ago
I don't trust the UK government either. But I'm both British and Australian and I see the need for a centralised identity service. Because the alternative is that we provide our passport to every online service that 'needs' to verify our identity. Then – lo, would you believe it! – they get hacked, and now all of our data is in the wild again. I'd much rather the government, who already know everything about me because may I remind you they issued the documents, had some way of that company querying my 'verified identity'. They might do it by me providing, say, an ID number string which is looked up. That's all they get: my ID number. In return, they get confirmation that I am who I say I am. Oh by the way I already have at least 2 of these ID numbers as an Australian citizen. My aforementioned passport, and my driver licence. Both of which I know I should keep 'private', lol, but if I want to interact with the world in any meaningful way the reality is that I spray these digits – along with my date of birth and address and whatever else they ask for – all over the goddamned place. But sure, centralised identity is bad.
- 0xy 1y ago
  Your mistake is assuming good faith on behalf of the government who arrests thousands of people for social media posts. Beyond faith, they are incredibly incompetent and this data will be stolen.
  - zbentley 1y ago
    You miss GP’s point. They’re not assuming good faith, they’re pointing out that the government already knows identity credentials and can, encrypted or not, quite easily correlate digital activity with those credentials. The question isn’t whether the government can/will identify and track you. They do, in good faith or bad. This is unfortunate and attempts to allow them to decrypt or acquire additional data about citizens’ activities (like chat control) should be opposed, but identity/activity tracking is omnipresent and irreversible. The question is whether identity credentials should be available which reduce the risk of additonal credential theft or bad-faith action (e.g. by other entities stealing non-secure-for-digital-use credentials like passports).
  - bpye 1y ago
znkynz 1y ago
Digital IDs are a solution. What are the clear problems statements? How can you show that Digital ID solves them? What problems do they also introduce?
FridayoLeary 1y ago
Kier Starmer seems to have no idea how he's coming across. Everything he does just makes him look more authoritarian. He's doing this right after passing that "online safety" bill. It's remarkable that the only time he got his act together was in sending anti government rioters to prison in record time. Which only goes to show what he can do when he wants. The palestine action thing is another one. They embarrassed him so now they are being arrested in their hundreds. It's really not a great look for him at all. But he seems blithley unaware of this. I imagine he's confused because his entire social group of enlightened progressive elites tell him he's amazing and he doesn't understand what the plebian class are complaining about.
- bendigedig 1y ago
  He's the ultimate product of a dysfunctional civil service; what else could be expected other than dis-empowering people, ignoring democracy, and increasing bureaucratic power?
esbranson 1y ago
No details of course, so also see the 38C3 talk on EU digital identity wallets[1] which came up in the EU age verification app thread[2]: – Authenticate RPs: no over-asking – Unobservability: keys on user devices – Selective disclosure: minimal attributes – Unlinkability: ZKP-based anonymous credentials – Deniability: designated-verifier ZKPs [1] https://media.ccc.de/v/38c3-eu-s-digital-identity-systems-reality-check-and-techniques-for-better-privacy https://media.ccc.de/v/38c3-eu-s-digital-identity-systems-re... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45359074 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45359074
dotBen 1y ago
Give the government your name, postal address, email address and citizenship information to store on a government database in order to protest against the government having your name, postal address, email address and citizenship information to store on a government database.
al_be_back 1y ago
Cyber risks notwithstanding (they concern me greatly), I still think the Gov is better placed than Private sector to guarantee citizens privacy and security (at that level). Why? The Gov is better placed to be the ultimate non-profit org: can fund, can legislate, can draw expertise, is non-profit etc. Treat the digital ID as critical national infrastructure, or else it'll fail massively.
sackfield 1y ago
Keir Starmer is trying to sell this to public with the promise that it will curb illegal immigration. But by how much? And if that target isn't met, will it be rolled back? It always amazes me when governments hold themselves to such a low standard, and just fall back on "if you don't like it vote it out" while not recognising that the signal of a vote every 4 years can not meaningfully extract consent on this particular issue.
- robotresearcher 1y ago
  Representative democracy sucks, it just sucks less than everything else we’ve tried. Plebiscites on specific issues are terrible: that’s how we got Brexit and woke up the next day astonished that our neighbors had been so daft.
  - sackfield 1y ago
    Brexit is an interesting case to bring up. As someone who voted against it, it is also clear to me that it hasn't been implemented in any way that could have made it a success from the representatives, and looks like a clear case of the representatives maliciously complying with a decree that they didn't agree with. I remain unconvinced that we can't do better than a system of government that is over 200 years old that only exists as a function of the technology at the time.
gkanai 1y ago
Japan has a digital national ID ("MyNumber" is the name). There was a lot of pushback before it passed but it did pass. It is now the main ID that is used for national health insurance and other government services. The rollout has been rocky with bugs and whatnot, but in the past 2 years or so there's been no drama. The ID is now supported in iOS and is coming to Android soon too, so one can have their ID on their phone instead of carrying around a physical card.
tailspin2019 1y ago
I’m a bit surprised that this of all things has received over 2m signatures already and yet we (the UK) have been passing far more dangerous legislation recently where the general public didn’t seem to care. I wonder if it’s because “ID cards” is an issue that has been around for some time and is perhaps more easily understood than other erosions of privacy and freedoms that are a more subtle.
- philipallstar 1y ago
  That's exactly it.
jackjeff 1y ago
No doubt it’ll be an open source app you’ll be able to recompile for your non Android/iOS computers. Otherwise I really hope to government gifts me an ID computer.
ksec 1y ago
Slightly Off Topic, the whole petition site is running on Ruby Rails. On the Topic, If Digital ID is required, what could we do to limit the scope of it to absolute minimum? Or do we have a way to have digital services from Tax, Driver Licences etc without some form of Digital ID. Or could we have Government Services System SSO without Digital ID?
deafpolygon 1y ago
At this point, I have no confidence that digital ID cards won’t be plagued by fraud, exploited by malicious actors, or misused in ways we can’t yet foresee. And beyond that, there’s the very real risk of government employees abusing the system for personal gain. Until there are stronger guarantees protecting individual freedom and privacy, I can’t see a system like this as trustworthy.
random9749832 1y ago
Not surprising the country is heading down this direction. Once worked at a school briefly, everything is heavily monitored and low trust. If you are new you have to show a certificate showing you have nothing on your record and ID such as a passport. Then you need a badge that you need to wear at all times or else have a staff member with you at all times. You are never allowed to use your phone unless in staff room. You must sign in every time you enter the building and sign out when you leave. Anything can be said about you and land you in HR. Everyone is like a walking CCTV. This is the future for broader society as the government has no trust in its citizens and believes the only solution is to monitor and control. The above will just be extrapolated where it can.
chmod775 1y ago
> We demand that the UK Government immediately commits to not introducing a digital ID cards. I can imagine that the grammatical error is now keeping whoever wrote that awake at night. We've all been there. My heart goes out to this poor soul.
Lizmuckle 1y ago
Ok put it this way- IF we go to Any Other Country to Work- We are Required to Speak that Language Fluently & Have Proof of ID - it should Work Both Ways.
irishmanlondon 1y ago
[dead]
doonnaa 1y ago
[flagged]

313 points by DamonHD 1y ago

After seeing NUMEROUS video of UK police showing up at doorsteps like the gestapo, arresting or citing or intimidating people who are simply practicing free speech, I don’t think anyone should support the government with a pathway to de-anonymize the web. Even if you support the current government, such powers will be used against you at some point.

n4r9 1y ago
I wonder how much you're loading into "simply practicing free speech".
- flir 1y ago
  Look, I didn't mean someone should actually burn down the building with the occupants still inside. It was satire!
- kimixa 1y ago
  The last one that made the rounds here ended up being carefully cut to give a specific impression (and the initial presented commentary straight up lies), and when the "full story" came out it turned out to be a lot less "simply practicing free speech" than implied. But retractions never get the same visibility, and it's already made the impression they wanted the post to make. Not a great site but gives the gist: https://www.newsweek.com/british-police-explain-video-officers-investigating-social-media-use-2133274 https://www.newsweek.com/british-police-explain-video-office...
  - n4r9 1y ago
    Might not be what you're referring to, but: a couple of months ago a user posted this comment [0] claiming the linked video showed police offices arresting and threatening to jail an old grandmother in the middle of the night, simply for "liking facebook posts the gov doesn’t like" Needless to say there were no arrests, no jail time, not even threats of jail time, it was 1:30pm, the woman was 54 years old, and she had posted comments calling for a councillor's resignation. There's an argument in there about whether councillors have a bit too much influence on local police behaviour. But it gets drowned out by hyperbole, embellishment, and an over-eagerness to link it all up to a nation-wide conspiracy. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44593022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44593022
- SilverElfin 1y ago
  Go watch the videos and look up what was said. Most of them are clearly normal non violent free speech, but just politically not aligned to the current government’s platform. I’m not saying all are just doing free speech but am confident about most.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - n4r9 1y ago
    In my experience, when someone has an extreme opinion and says "just watch this video", it's largely a waste of time. Video is too easily game-able as a medium.
    - beeflet 1y ago
      Good thinking, you wouldn't want to expose yourself to extreme opinions. Come to think of it, when are we going to ban dangerous assault thoughts? Not everyone has a mind big enough for radical ideas of that caliber.
      - n4r9 1y ago
        I'm open to a broad range of opinions. I'm less open to arguments hinging on watching a video. Especially if they won't even link to one.
- cortic 1y ago
  It is a criminal offense in the UK to use insulting words in public, or to send any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive (whether any one does or not is irreverent). The Online Safety Act and Hate Crime Provision have extended these somewhat into the realms of 1984. But the police do tend to use them sparingly.
  - teamonkey 1y ago
    > It is a criminal offense in the UK to use insulting words in public, or to send any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive (whether any one does or not is irreverent). This is categorically untrue.
    - oncallthrow 1y ago
      The latter part at least is true. Sending "grossly offensive" messages is illegal under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003, specifically Section 127: > a person is guilty of an offence if he— > (a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or > (b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent. I suspect the former is also true, but am not well-read in that area
      - teamonkey 1y ago
        [flagged]
        oncallthrow 1y ago
        > “Grossly offensive” is absolutely not the same thing as “any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive”. There is no statutory definition of “grossly”, so in effect it is the same. There is prior art for it being interpreted incredibly widely. Not to mention the other incredibly vague adjectives in the law. > Correct https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html “Don’t be snarky”.
- oncallthrow 1y ago
  In many cases the “free speech” genuinely is racial hatred bordering on incitement. But on the other hand there genuinely have been many people arrested (and in some cases convicted) under these laws for statements that are shockingly milquetoast.
  - kimixa 1y ago
    > But on the other hand there genuinely have been many people arrested (and in some cases convicted) under these laws for statements that are shockingly milquetoast. Care to name some? The vast majority of cases I've looked into end up being a lot more than the initially presented "They Were Arrested For Saying Bad Words On The Internet!" story pushed on the internet. In fact, I can't remember a single one where there wasn't a lot more, but that's not really more than anecdote.
    - oncallthrow 1y ago
      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-46959556?app-referrer=deep-linkm https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-46959556... is one example of a successful prosecution. There are many more cases of harassment by the police or arrests, the most recent example that comes to mind being Graham Linehan. These are clearly not as bad as prosecutions, but still create a chilling effect.
      - n4r9 1y ago
        Linehan was arrested for inciting violence. He encouraged people to punch trans women.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        wastle 1y ago
        [flagged]
    - jdietrich 1y ago
raesene9 1y ago
If you're looking for evidence of the UK gov's authoritarian tendencies, you don't need to go looking at videos on Youtube, just look at the number of arrests of peaceful protestors who were given charges under terrorism legislation for holding up banners or wearing T-Shirts mentioning "Palestine Action" (ref https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/25/fate-of-hundreds-arrested-for-alleged-palestine-action-support-in-limbo-if-challenge-to-ban-is-blocked-court-told https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/25/fate-of-hund...). Or indeed in one notable case the person who was arrested for a T-Shirt about "Plasticine action"
- ChocolateGod 1y ago
  They're supporting a specific group that went into a military base and damaged military equipment (that was irrelevant to palestine/israel), those people going out with those T-Shirts know exactly why the group was proscribed and are seeking to be arrested, why are we shocked they got arrested, they wanted it.
  - raesene9 1y ago
    Put it this way, the UK managed to get through the troubles, which had a lot of events far more serious than what Palestine action have done, without needing this level of policing of free speech. The point I was making is that successive UK gov's are tending towards authoritarianism, the current one included.
    - Barrin92 1y ago
      If you're trying to convince Brits not to enact these policies "you guys made it through The Troubles" is a really bad argument unless you're very unfamiliar with the body count and terror and the public perception of that period in British history. (it included some fifty thousand casualties and sixteen thousand bombings) An advocate of these policies would quite literally argue that not getting into something like The Troubles is the point and a lot of people would agree if that was what is on the horizon.
mhh__ 1y ago
Tweets - prison Assaulting and trying to stab a man burning a Quran - Suspended sentence https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8xr12yx5l4o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8xr12yx5l4o watch the video and tell me this man should be A) not in prison and B) in the country after said prison sentence
- Stevvo 1y ago
  Any young man would probably get an attempted murder charge for that. Very incendiary ruling; sort of thing that could start a riot.
  - mhh__ 1y ago
    Policing by consent admits an arbitrage whereby one simply refuses Anarchotyranny
userbinator 1y ago
AIUI "practicing free speech" is mainly a US thing that doesn't map cleanly to other countries.
- beeflet 1y ago
  It should
  - n4r9 1y ago
    Why?
FridayoLeary 1y ago
What is actually going on with that? It feels like over the last 2 years the British police have decided to see what it's like being the stasi. Most of the msm are faithfully avoiding mentioning how authoritarian the police have become. The odd thing is they are not even necessarily propping up a political regime, although again it feels like they are getting some of their instructions directly from kier starmers mind, but they are arresting people for being mean on twitter. It's really odd and no matter what side of the political divide you are on you should be disturbed.

dijit 1y ago

As well as the Estonia eID system works (aside from that time it got hacked[0] and that other time they leaked all the photos[1]) and how well a digital (non-government) system works in Scandinavia… I have to say… As a Dual British/Swedish Citizen, I really do not trust the UK government. They have proven over and over and over, that at every opportunity presented they will increase their own authority. I don’t believe I have personally witnessed any other advanced economy that so ardently marches towards authoritarianism. So, no matter if it’s a good idea or not. I can’t in good faith advise the UK having more powers. Unfortunately the UK government themselves can sort of just grant themselves more power. So… [0]: https://e-estonia.com/card-security-risk/ https://e-estonia.com/card-security-risk/ [1]: https://therecord.media/estonia-says-a-hacker-downloaded-286000-id-photos-from-government-database https://therecord.media/estonia-says-a-hacker-downloaded-286...

mothballed 1y ago
Many of the former colonies of the UK have chosen to secede from the UK. Is there any chance England might too?
- dijit 1y ago
  No, English people still somehow tie their identity to the UK Government somehow. Scotland will not be granted another independence vote for at least 15 years, despite the last one being build upon a house of lies and nobody knows anything about what the Welsh think. I do think we’re witnessing the collapse of the UK, but more like a Roman Empire collapse - as in it’s happening over decades. Dying with a whimper, not a bang.
  - Bender 1y ago
    Scotland needs to reinstate their king and conquer England to right the wrongs.
    - wizzwizz4 1y ago
      That already happened: James VI of Scotland inherited the English (and Irish) throne. There's a pedantic sense in which the current English king is actually the Scottish king, not the other way around (although stronger pedantry would say the Hanoverian succession is sufficient to prove that whole line of reasoning a load of tosh). What would restoring the Scottish monarchy mean to you?

nprateem 1y ago

[flagged]

ZiiS 1y ago
Are you suggesting A&E should not treat you if you are unluckly enough to land on your phone as you get run over etc? Or that prescription fraud cost anything close to what the government will spend implementing a major new IT system?
- nprateem 1y ago
  [flagged]
- blitzar 1y ago
  > Are you suggesting Unironically a majority in the UK would say they "are demanding it happen"

whitehexagon 1y ago

Signed, but I guess it is gonna be one of those where they keep asking until they get the answer they want. Where is the counter bill to block all future attempts of such privacy invading bills. Can the public draft new legislation like that? If so please ensures it blocks any dependency on smart phone ownership or other bigtech services.

tialaramex 1y ago
Unlike the ludicrous US system with a "written constitution" that basically means a handful of unelected people get to overide all laws and say they're just "interpreting" as they ignore the plain words, the clear intent or any other obstacle to their Imperial Decree, the Parliament is literally Sovereign. So, if Parliament passes a Law tomorrow, miraculously by unanimous consent saying "The UK shall never have Digital ID" and insisting it denies itself any ability to make a law introducing such a thing - at any point it can also, despite that, pass law making a Digital ID by the narrowest majority, for example the day after. In fact not so very long ago this exact farce played out. The Liberal Democrats were in a situation where they could either join a coalition with the larger Conservative party and form a government or they could say "No" and likely the populace has to do another election. Popular understanding was that British people hate elections, and so if you insist on another one they will punish you, the Lib Dems did not want that. But, they were concerned that the Tories would betray them (predictably) So hence the 2011 "Fixed Term Parliaments Act". But although the Act says you can't just end parliament without a term ending, obviously Parliament can just pass a new law saying nah, changed our mind, which is what the 2019 "Early Parliamentary General Election Act" does and then the 2022 "Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act" undid the whole pointless mess. Parliamentary sovereignty might be able to take on limits via some sort of tradition over a long period. For example perhaps if Parliament had stuck with that Fixed Term rule for a few hundred years - it'd settle as "Just how it is" and there'd be a serious argument that you can't just pass a law saying just this once as an exception we'll hold elections early. But "It was a few years ago" clearly doesn't cut it and that's what you would need for such a "counter bill". The best you can hope for is a pledge by politicians, which is worth slightly less than a piece of paper you wrote it on.
- 1y ago

poszlem 1y ago

Have any of those petitions ever changed anything? I might as well shout 'I don’t want a digital ID' down the toilet, it’d be just as effective. And that’s coming from someone who’s against digital IDs.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
> Have any of those petitions ever changed anything? What's the alternative? Not do anything and hope things change by themselves? Has that worked in the past? Is doing something than better nothing?
- luke727 1y ago
  Signing an online petition isn't better than doing nothing and is arguably worse.
- dazc 1y ago
  Well, 2 million plus have signed the petition and 90% of those people will go along with the scheme when it is introduced - because it will be convenient to do so. Tell me how you plan to survive living off-grid whilst standing firm against it.

redeyedtreefrog 1y ago

France, Germany, Sweden, Estonia and India already have government id. However, this being hackernews there will never be a link to a well researched article on the pros and cons of introducing id cards (digital or otherwise), only conspiracy theories and confident declarations that id cards are a surefire symbol of authoritarian states. I don't know what I think, I lack sufficient knowledge to have an opinion. But I still know approximately 10,000x more about UK politics, economics and immigration than 99% of the people commenting here.

dazc 1y ago
The root of the issue is a mistrust of a Govt that has suddenly decided to rush through something, that was never discussed prior to the election, on the grounds that it will tackle illegal immigration, which it clearly will not.
hollow-moe 1y ago
France Identité app is closed source, requires GMS and Play Integrity, and is only available on closed stores. It is not yet mandatory but who knows when it'll happen. No thanks.

AJRF 1y ago

The labour government can not be challenged in any serious way until the next election in 4 years. Petitions don't really do anything, they will just say "no" to what the people ask for and move on with their agenda. It is disheartening to see this country follow the same path the US took, it seems as our politics become more polarised, the team sports aspect means we start seeing parties push through agendas while putting their fingers in their ears. It's so easy for a politician to point score by shooting down dissent as "the other side thinks this is bad, so it means it's good". The stated goal of Digital ID is to reduce illegal migrants from working, getting housing and using services. The obvious issue here is that they don't use traditional means to do this today, and it won't change with the introduction of this. They already hide from the state. If we had decent opposition they'd try to kill this by mandating it HAD to be used for voting, which Labour will absolutely not want. I would say 95% of my friend group were not born in this country, and the changes this government are making are pushing them to want to leave, and they are here legally, they have high paying jobs and skills and they feel unwanted. For the first time in my life it seems like it makes sense to join them.

mytailorisrich 1y ago
Regarding tackling illegal immigration the issue is that there are already ample and sufficients checks mandated by law so this would not change anything. Indeed the main issue is that there are dodgy employers and landlords who simply flunk the law and would oviously continue to do so and ignore Digital IDs all the same. Digital IDs would also be de facto mandatory for the majority of adult residents based on what they would be required for despite the government very clumsily saying otherwise. The government is simply being dishonest here so that should arouse suspicion...
- Spivak 1y ago
  > Indeed the main issue is that there are dodgy employers and landlords who simply flunk the law I'm surprised that this is your framing, I don't think I would hesitate to offer a willing tenant or otherwise good employee a job because of their legal status. Mostly just on principle, it's not my job to be an arm of the state and I resent being deputized. They're physically here in my town, better they have somewhere to live and a means of supporting themselves rather than being homeless. If the state wants to find and deport them they can do it themselves on their own time.

dmazin 1y ago

The thing that frustrates me the most about digital ID cards is not themselves on merit but rather modern Labour's political abilities. Like, the UK economy is stagnant, there is a cost-of-living crisis, and Labour needs to present the public with an alternative to Farage. And the answer is... digital ID cards?

VBprogrammer 1y ago
Completely agree. I'm not too bothered Digital ID cards, I was mildly annoyed by the idea of actual ID cards (manly the cost) but as a free digital app, I don't have many objections. I've seen it from colleagues in Denmark. If they manage to build in some zero knowledge proof of age I might even support it. But how this is supposed to stop immigration, illegal or otherwise, is beyond me.
- bossyTeacher 1y ago
  I think about 90% of immigration to UK is legal so it won't. Seems like a huge expense when money is really tight
- dmazin 1y ago
  Why should we stop immigration?
  - VBprogrammer 1y ago
    I mean it's obvious to anyone who isn't an idiot that we shouldn't. However, populist parties banging the drum on this are looking likely to be at least the second biggest party in the next general election (and that comes with some wishful thinking given the recent polls). Labour's approach seems to be to validate their scaremongering but to claim they can deal with it without going full on Third Reich...
    - dmazin 1y ago
      Oh, yes, I understand. Yeah, if this is meant to speak to Reform voters, it’s really unclear if it actually makes sense to them or anyone if this is actually an immigration thing.

_trampeltier 1y ago

Just today Switzerland said YES to E-ID https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/votes/20250928/e-id-act.html https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/votes/202509...

flowerthoughts 1y ago
50.39% yes. Wow, that's the closest I've seen here.
- 1over137 1y ago
  With a mere 49.55% turnout.
widgeyboy 1y ago
But fortunately "Use of the e-ID is voluntary..." in their case. Whereas in the UK it's being pushed as a (for all intents and purposes) mandatory thing.

nickslaughter02 1y ago

Prediction: > The Government has no plans to stop the introduction of Digital ID cards, and is working closely with companies to implement it as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903

nickslaughter02 1y ago
Four days later: > We will introduce a digital ID within this Parliament to help tackle illegal migration, make accessing government services easier, and enable wider efficiencies. We will consult on details soon. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45461391 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45461391

mhotchen 1y ago

It almost feels predestined for this to not solve the problems at hand, overrun on costs and timelines (furthering the first point), in no way streamline existing processes or cut costs, leave behind parts of society, and present security vulnerabilities that can be capitalised on through either social engineering or malware (also furthering the first point, only now citizens will be accused of tax fraud) I hate to be pessimistic and there are elements of the idea I like, but when reflecting on the issues at hand this feels like popping the toaster because you smell burnt toast, but the rest of the house is on fire

IMSAI8080 1y ago
Indeed. It'll be a gravy train for one of the usual big consulting companies. Billions of much needed cash will be wasted and nothing of any value will be achieved. This ID system is touted as somehow stopping illegal boat crossings (the current political hot topic in the UK) because it will apparently somehow stop illegal work. This is obvious nonsense. Employers are already supposed to do ID checks and face heavy fines for employing illegal workers. Illegal employers obviously don't bother with such checks and pay cash in hand. They will continue not to bother doing any such checks, with or without ID cards. A great deal of illegal work is actually caused by arm's-length employers such as food delivery apps and other similar platforms. These companies already do fairly robust ID checks. What happens though is people rent out their accounts (often for surprisingly small amounts of money) with the ID check already passed to illegals who actually do the work. The problem is nothing to do with ID checks, it's the fact that the employer never sees the employee in person and doesn't verify on a day-to-day basis who is actually completing the work.

theginger 1y ago

This appears to be backfiring spectacularly. It is a shame in many ways because a decent digital ID system would be very beneficial. The problem is the approach is completely wrong. There are already 10+ competing ID system which are now largely digital. A solution on how to bring all that together done well could make things significantly more secure by reducing the attack surface and make it much more reliable. Instead it looks like they are going for 1 more competing system, the implementation of which will be steered by politics and ideology rather than technology and technical requirements.

panstromek 1y ago

I don't understand the problem. How is this different from all other identifiers, physical or digital, that most goverments already have?

dazc 1y ago
The likelihood that it will become tied to your bank account, credit file, etc in a way which isn't currently possible with physical forms of id such as passports and driving licences.
- hchdifnfbgbf 1y ago
  How isn’t that currently possible? In America, your bank is already required to keep a semi-permanent record of your state issued identification for anti-money laundering/terrorism financing reasons. I can see concerns about it becoming a widely used form of SSO, potentially even mandated, and that destroying privacy. However, banks and credit are cases where you already do not have that privacy, so they don’t seem like a very compelling example to point to.
  - dazc 1y ago
    In the UK, your bank will have a copy of your id to prove they carried out basic id checks - it currently ends there.
    - blitzar 1y ago
      The bank can, will and do report transactions to the government as well as annual interest etc to hmrc - as far as I am aware they use national insurance numbers in those reportings.
- tikkabhuna 1y ago
  I’m pretty sure UK security services can link bank accounts to you already. Hell, credit score companies like Experian already do it. This is beneficial for public services and companies that need to identify you. Having a single ID for a person is a huge improvement. As an example, when we got married, my wife was simultaneously both her maiden name and my surname. There is absolutely no link between passport, birth certificate, driving license, etc. You have to go around to all these different organisations and have them update the details. They all have different requirements for updating the name. Having a single consistent mechanism for referring to a person in systems seems hugely beneficial for both the organisation and the person.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

uyzstvqs 1y ago

We need to clearly define some stuff around Digital ID, since people seem to be using the term for distinctly different things. There's (1) eGovernment platforms, where you can handle government-related business online using a login. There's (2) Digital ID cards, where you can use your phone in place of a physical ID or drivers license in real life. And then there's (3) full EU-proposed-style Digital ID, where government wants to act as a SSO provider for private online services, like social media. Yet someone can be rightfully criticizing (3), as it would pose a major risk to online privacy, and someone else barges in with "here in [place] we have a great eGovernment platform which is very useful for filing your taxes online, I don't see why you'd oppose that". Not specifically in this thread, it's been noticeable over almost all Digital ID-related discussions in the past. Please be considerate of that. This appears to be about (2), with the catch of it being made mandatory for anyone who wants to be employed in the UK.

dazc 1y ago
"This appears to be about (2), with the catch of it being made mandatory for anyone who wants to be employed in the UK." For people who are already working illegally, or plan to, it would change nothing, as they could dodge any checks by sub-contracting through someone who seems to be legally employed. The government cannot be so daft as to ignore how much illegal work happens this way, so there has to be some larger scheme at play here.
suyash 1y ago
There are already systems to check immigration status "Right to Work" in the UK that employer can use to check any immigratants current status.
graemep 1y ago
The suspicion is that the government will introduce it as (2) but it will be extended to replace physical ID, especially as the government has discussed making driving licences digital. On top of that once introduced it is likely that you will need to provide ID for more things, possibly including (3).
tmtvl 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

armchairhacker 1y ago

Is there a technological way to make an ID that's anonymous and irrevocable (since arguably people should never lose citizenship)? Because digital, national ID has major benefits (prevents fraud, reduces paperwork), but yeah, those are IMO larger drawbacks.

userbinator 1y ago
"ID" and "anonymous" are exact opposites.
- armchairhacker 1y ago
  Not necessarily, by "ID" I mean certificate that proves you're a citizen, adult, and owner of [specific thing] (to a service that manages [specific thing], without letting them deduce anything else you own). That can be done without identifying you e.g. via ZKP. Although the ID should also be irrevocable, yet could easily be stolen... Perhaps the solution is to give local municipals (e.g. neighborhoods) the power to generate, revoke, and authenticate IDs. The textbook surveillance state seems to always be a large organization; neighborhoods can be problematic, but I suspect it happens less often, because they're much easier to influence (and overthrow the "leaders" of) than big governments. So e.g. if a national bank wants to know if a user's provided credentials (name, address, etc.) are accurate, it asks their city such a user is one of their residents; the city knows what services the resident uses and can (if malicious) block them, but the government can only track the services of all residents in a city, and must block entire cities (which, if they band together, require smaller numbers to challenge the government; in a large country like the US, there would be extra layers such as states, so that no layer significantly overpowers a group of several of the layer below).

vitorgrs 1y ago

As a Brazilian, it's pretty weird when I see that countries like UK or the U.S don't have national IDs. Here that would be seen as a completely insane.

Ylpertnodi 1y ago
Has (everyone) having an ID stop crime?
- vitorgrs 1y ago
  I didn't even mention crime. Not sure why this question. Obviously it doesn't stop all crimes, probably helps on some. Just saying how there is a very different culture, where no one see having an ID as something weird and invasive.

t43562 1y ago

I think it would be nice not to have to prove identity and address repeatedly with lots of paper utility bills. As for abuse by authority: well don't elect a populist party then. If you do it won't matter what defenses you think you have.

Avamander 1y ago
Utility bills as verification have always been weird to me. How is that actual proof? I can't see how that doesn't cut off more of the populace than having a national ID would. Assuming it's an issue as mentioned a few times here in comments.

4ndrewl 1y ago

It's difficult to understand how one of the least popular governments of recent times are going in hard on one of the least popular policies (in the UK) in recent times.

KoolKat23 1y ago
Distraction. You're debating the policy now, not the people.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

puppycodes 1y ago

Oh hell yes two million signatures lets gooooo. Finally some inspiring movement on this front.

cedws 1y ago
It’s a lot of signatures but the petition against the Online Safety Act got 500k and the response was basically just “lolno.” What’s the point of democracy if the people say no and the government does it anyway?
- puppycodes 1y ago
  Ugh... True. Thats what I get for having a moment of hope. Lesson learned lol.

sega_sai 1y ago

To me it's a question of benefits vs drawbacks. In my understanding ID cards are beneficial for 1) Running government services 2) Fraud prevention 3) Some immigration control (as at least some reason why people try to migrate to UK is lax document checks) Some people argue that it's somehow becomes authoritarian, when you have an ID card. I personally don't buy that as most of us have already passports, NI numbers etc, so all the security cervices if need be have access to that. Obviously if people start to engage with hypotheticals, that these cards will be used to check whether you can access internet etc, I agree, that would be dangerous, but that is not being proposed. Also the argument that implementing it will take a lot of money and will never be done is not a convincing one, as in that case one should not really try to do anything in this country.

jen729w 1y ago

I don't trust the UK government either. But I'm both British and Australian and I see the need for a centralised identity service. Because the alternative is that we provide our passport to every online service that 'needs' to verify our identity. Then – lo, would you believe it! – they get hacked, and now all of our data is in the wild again. I'd much rather the government, who already know everything about me because may I remind you they issued the documents, had some way of that company querying my 'verified identity'. They might do it by me providing, say, an ID number string which is looked up. That's all they get: my ID number. In return, they get confirmation that I am who I say I am. Oh by the way I already have at least 2 of these ID numbers as an Australian citizen. My aforementioned passport, and my driver licence. Both of which I know I should keep 'private', lol, but if I want to interact with the world in any meaningful way the reality is that I spray these digits – along with my date of birth and address and whatever else they ask for – all over the goddamned place. But sure, centralised identity is bad.

0xy 1y ago
Your mistake is assuming good faith on behalf of the government who arrests thousands of people for social media posts. Beyond faith, they are incredibly incompetent and this data will be stolen.
- zbentley 1y ago
  You miss GP’s point. They’re not assuming good faith, they’re pointing out that the government already knows identity credentials and can, encrypted or not, quite easily correlate digital activity with those credentials. The question isn’t whether the government can/will identify and track you. They do, in good faith or bad. This is unfortunate and attempts to allow them to decrypt or acquire additional data about citizens’ activities (like chat control) should be opposed, but identity/activity tracking is omnipresent and irreversible. The question is whether identity credentials should be available which reduce the risk of additonal credential theft or bad-faith action (e.g. by other entities stealing non-secure-for-digital-use credentials like passports).
- bpye 1y ago

znkynz 1y ago

Digital IDs are a solution. What are the clear problems statements? How can you show that Digital ID solves them? What problems do they also introduce?

FridayoLeary 1y ago

Kier Starmer seems to have no idea how he's coming across. Everything he does just makes him look more authoritarian. He's doing this right after passing that "online safety" bill. It's remarkable that the only time he got his act together was in sending anti government rioters to prison in record time. Which only goes to show what he can do when he wants. The palestine action thing is another one. They embarrassed him so now they are being arrested in their hundreds. It's really not a great look for him at all. But he seems blithley unaware of this. I imagine he's confused because his entire social group of enlightened progressive elites tell him he's amazing and he doesn't understand what the plebian class are complaining about.

bendigedig 1y ago
He's the ultimate product of a dysfunctional civil service; what else could be expected other than dis-empowering people, ignoring democracy, and increasing bureaucratic power?

esbranson 1y ago

No details of course, so also see the 38C3 talk on EU digital identity wallets[1] which came up in the EU age verification app thread[2]: – Authenticate RPs: no over-asking – Unobservability: keys on user devices – Selective disclosure: minimal attributes – Unlinkability: ZKP-based anonymous credentials – Deniability: designated-verifier ZKPs [1] https://media.ccc.de/v/38c3-eu-s-digital-identity-systems-reality-check-and-techniques-for-better-privacy https://media.ccc.de/v/38c3-eu-s-digital-identity-systems-re... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45359074 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45359074

dotBen 1y ago

Give the government your name, postal address, email address and citizenship information to store on a government database in order to protest against the government having your name, postal address, email address and citizenship information to store on a government database.

al_be_back 1y ago

Cyber risks notwithstanding (they concern me greatly), I still think the Gov is better placed than Private sector to guarantee citizens privacy and security (at that level). Why? The Gov is better placed to be the ultimate non-profit org: can fund, can legislate, can draw expertise, is non-profit etc. Treat the digital ID as critical national infrastructure, or else it'll fail massively.

sackfield 1y ago

Keir Starmer is trying to sell this to public with the promise that it will curb illegal immigration. But by how much? And if that target isn't met, will it be rolled back? It always amazes me when governments hold themselves to such a low standard, and just fall back on "if you don't like it vote it out" while not recognising that the signal of a vote every 4 years can not meaningfully extract consent on this particular issue.

robotresearcher 1y ago
Representative democracy sucks, it just sucks less than everything else we’ve tried. Plebiscites on specific issues are terrible: that’s how we got Brexit and woke up the next day astonished that our neighbors had been so daft.
- sackfield 1y ago
  Brexit is an interesting case to bring up. As someone who voted against it, it is also clear to me that it hasn't been implemented in any way that could have made it a success from the representatives, and looks like a clear case of the representatives maliciously complying with a decree that they didn't agree with. I remain unconvinced that we can't do better than a system of government that is over 200 years old that only exists as a function of the technology at the time.

gkanai 1y ago

Japan has a digital national ID ("MyNumber" is the name). There was a lot of pushback before it passed but it did pass. It is now the main ID that is used for national health insurance and other government services. The rollout has been rocky with bugs and whatnot, but in the past 2 years or so there's been no drama. The ID is now supported in iOS and is coming to Android soon too, so one can have their ID on their phone instead of carrying around a physical card.

tailspin2019 1y ago

I’m a bit surprised that this of all things has received over 2m signatures already and yet we (the UK) have been passing far more dangerous legislation recently where the general public didn’t seem to care. I wonder if it’s because “ID cards” is an issue that has been around for some time and is perhaps more easily understood than other erosions of privacy and freedoms that are a more subtle.

philipallstar 1y ago
That's exactly it.

jackjeff 1y ago

No doubt it’ll be an open source app you’ll be able to recompile for your non Android/iOS computers. Otherwise I really hope to government gifts me an ID computer.

ksec 1y ago

Slightly Off Topic, the whole petition site is running on Ruby Rails. On the Topic, If Digital ID is required, what could we do to limit the scope of it to absolute minimum? Or do we have a way to have digital services from Tax, Driver Licences etc without some form of Digital ID. Or could we have Government Services System SSO without Digital ID?

deafpolygon 1y ago

At this point, I have no confidence that digital ID cards won’t be plagued by fraud, exploited by malicious actors, or misused in ways we can’t yet foresee. And beyond that, there’s the very real risk of government employees abusing the system for personal gain. Until there are stronger guarantees protecting individual freedom and privacy, I can’t see a system like this as trustworthy.

random9749832 1y ago

Not surprising the country is heading down this direction. Once worked at a school briefly, everything is heavily monitored and low trust. If you are new you have to show a certificate showing you have nothing on your record and ID such as a passport. Then you need a badge that you need to wear at all times or else have a staff member with you at all times. You are never allowed to use your phone unless in staff room. You must sign in every time you enter the building and sign out when you leave. Anything can be said about you and land you in HR. Everyone is like a walking CCTV. This is the future for broader society as the government has no trust in its citizens and believes the only solution is to monitor and control. The above will just be extrapolated where it can.

chmod775 1y ago

> We demand that the UK Government immediately commits to not introducing a digital ID cards. I can imagine that the grammatical error is now keeping whoever wrote that awake at night. We've all been there. My heart goes out to this poor soul.

Lizmuckle 1y ago

Ok put it this way- IF we go to Any Other Country to Work- We are Required to Speak that Language Fluently & Have Proof of ID - it should Work Both Ways.

irishmanlondon 1y ago

[dead]

doonnaa 1y ago

[flagged]