4 ms·

You're still conflating a few things. The UK government wants to require digital ID for employment, with housing etc to follow. People on HN suspect the plan is

You're still conflating a few things. The UK government wants to require digital ID for employment, with housing etc to follow. People on HN suspect the plan is to combine that with the Online Safety Act internet identification requirements, but no such plans have been announced as far as I'm aware.

masfuerte 1y ago
When Starmer announced digital ID he also talked about the regulation of social media. Sure, nobody has confirmed the plan, but the two things are clearly connected in the prime minister's thinking. On the other hand, according to The Times yesterday the cabinet isn't happy with digital ID. It's as obvious to them as it is to everyone else that digital ID won't make a jot of difference to illegal working. And may well lose them votes.
octo888 1y ago
Yes the idea is to get ahead of things you are opposed to instead of waiting for it to be law already, so you can try to prevent or shape it
graemep 1y ago
The UK is also shortly going to require all children to have a digital identifier to be used across government services. That also clears a path to a digital ID. The government has also talked about making drivings licences digital (i.e. apps) People suspect a lot more than it being used in conjunction with the OSA. it can be extended in all sorts of ways. Once available it will be used for more and more. It is not necessary for employment and housing as there are already documents that can be checked on the rare occasions people rent housing or get a new job. It is only worth doing if it is something people will use daily. Essentially people will be coerced into carrying a Google or Apple smartphone with the ID app on it.
- wizzwizz4 1y ago
  > The UK is also shortly going to require all children to have a digital identifier to be used across government services. I hadn't heard about that one. Source?
  - graemep 1y ago
    Section four of the awful Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/62773/documents/7087 https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/62773/documents/708...
    - wizzwizz4 1y ago
      Edit: I somehow completely skipped the bad bit, right at the beginning. > 16LB (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify a description of consistent identifier for the purposes of this section. Such provisions are ripe for abuse – somewhat tempered by 16LB(6), but that relies on the designated person's discretion (which itself is constrained by 16LB(12), and my experience with educational folk suggests they take such guidance seriously, even when they profoundly disagree with it), and having a database in the first place is the major issue. Ignore the rest of this comment. --- That doesn't seem to say that? It says: > 16LB (2) “Consistent identifier” means any identifier (such as, for example, a number or code used for identification purposes) that— > (a) relates to a child, and > (b) forms part of a set of similar identifiers that is of general application. School ID plus some school-specific identifier would suffice, if I'm reading this right. That said, I'm not sure why you'd write this into a law under my interpretation, since it's already current practice to take actions that are "likely to facilitate the exercise by any person of a function of that person that relates to safeguarding or promoting the welfare of children", and to avoid actions that "would be more detrimental to the child than not including it", so maybe this is one of the things that you need to be a legal expert to understand.

masfuerte 1y ago

When Starmer announced digital ID he also talked about the regulation of social media. Sure, nobody has confirmed the plan, but the two things are clearly connected in the prime minister's thinking. On the other hand, according to The Times yesterday the cabinet isn't happy with digital ID. It's as obvious to them as it is to everyone else that digital ID won't make a jot of difference to illegal working. And may well lose them votes.

octo888 1y ago

Yes the idea is to get ahead of things you are opposed to instead of waiting for it to be law already, so you can try to prevent or shape it

graemep 1y ago

The UK is also shortly going to require all children to have a digital identifier to be used across government services. That also clears a path to a digital ID. The government has also talked about making drivings licences digital (i.e. apps) People suspect a lot more than it being used in conjunction with the OSA. it can be extended in all sorts of ways. Once available it will be used for more and more. It is not necessary for employment and housing as there are already documents that can be checked on the rare occasions people rent housing or get a new job. It is only worth doing if it is something people will use daily. Essentially people will be coerced into carrying a Google or Apple smartphone with the ID app on it.

wizzwizz4 1y ago
> The UK is also shortly going to require all children to have a digital identifier to be used across government services. I hadn't heard about that one. Source?
- graemep 1y ago
  Section four of the awful Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/62773/documents/7087 https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/62773/documents/708...
  - wizzwizz4 1y ago
    Edit: I somehow completely skipped the bad bit, right at the beginning. > 16LB (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify a description of consistent identifier for the purposes of this section. Such provisions are ripe for abuse – somewhat tempered by 16LB(6), but that relies on the designated person's discretion (which itself is constrained by 16LB(12), and my experience with educational folk suggests they take such guidance seriously, even when they profoundly disagree with it), and having a database in the first place is the major issue. Ignore the rest of this comment. --- That doesn't seem to say that? It says: > 16LB (2) “Consistent identifier” means any identifier (such as, for example, a number or code used for identification purposes) that— > (a) relates to a child, and > (b) forms part of a set of similar identifiers that is of general application. School ID plus some school-specific identifier would suffice, if I'm reading this right. That said, I'm not sure why you'd write this into a law under my interpretation, since it's already current practice to take actions that are "likely to facilitate the exercise by any person of a function of that person that relates to safeguarding or promoting the welfare of children", and to avoid actions that "would be more detrimental to the child than not including it", so maybe this is one of the things that you need to be a legal expert to understand.