4 ms·

UK minister ducks cost questions on nationwide digital ID scheme

70 points by Bender 1y ago

andy_ppp 1y ago
The whole thing is completely mad, you need to show your passport to an employer or otherwise prove your identity before starting any job already… so what is this weird desire to completely track people really about? I honestly don’t understand what the perceived advantages for the government are? The UK is probably one of the most surveilled countries in the world already.
- IanCal 1y ago
  No you don’t. A birth certificate can be used for example along with a letter from a government agency. Also expired passports are fine.
- michaelt 1y ago
  Let's quote the godfather of British ID cards, Tony Blair:- > Why is TikTok so successful? Because its algorithms establish your personal preferences so quickly and satisfy them with their content. How do they do that? By accumulating your data and using the services of a huge number of computer engineers to make those algorithms so effective. [...] > Imagine that all your health information was in one place: easy, with your permission, for anyone anywhere in the health service to see. That your passport, driving licence, anything you need to prove your identity, were in one simple digital wallet, unique to you. That you could purchase and pay for any goods or services using your digital ID. https://institute.global/insights/tech-and-digitalisation/tony-blair-digital-id-is-the-disruption-the-uk-desperately-needs https://institute.global/insights/tech-and-digitalisation/to... So the proposal isn't just a mandatory ID card - it's also the unification of all government databases. Combining tax records, driving licenses, passports, NHS records, benefits, vehicle registration, the ability to get a job, the ability to rent a house and the ability to get a bank account into one unified super-database (with an app) The ID being fully digital will also be a boon for the financial services industry. Today banks extending large loans can afford to check people's documents properly even if it takes a few days and a visit to a bank branch. But what payday loan companies that want to loan someone £15 for a takeaway curry on sunday evening? They don't have the margin, the time or the physical presence to check IDs properly, and often lose money to fraud because of it.
  - andy_ppp 1y ago
    Why do governments think IT projects like this are even possible for them to accomplish? I can guarantee already the requirements of such a system are impossible to capture and then the developers and difficulty to build such a system with probably a thousand or more people working on it for 10 years and billions we can’t currently afford. I predict endless delays, a toxic work environment and the resulting system will not even end up working and will eventually be scrapped probably in favour of smashing everyone’s data into an LLM. Sigh.
    - adammarples 1y ago
      Because it has been accomplished already in many countries
      - andy_ppp 1y ago
        A mandatory ID system is not the same as a unified system for all government data which is the suggested real plan
  - dijit 1y ago
    I always bring it up in these threads, but as a dual british/swedish citizen I find it incredulous. Sweden has a national database and a national ID card system, and it makes my life in Sweden a lot better. That said, I don’t trust the UK government, I haven’t trusted any UK government in my adult lifetime and I am coming into middle-age. Solve that problem first, maybe?
    - nialv7 1y ago
      I am indifferent to having/not having a government ID. But I just find it incredibly stupid for the government to introduce it now given the current political atmosphere.
      - dijit 1y ago
        Have you got a license for that opinion? (I agree with you)
- Traubenfuchs 1y ago
  Follow the money. Someone will get a lot of money to implement and maintain this system.
  - Nextgrid 1y ago
    Someone will get a lot of money* *implementation and maintenance optional and may be subject to additional fees
- pessimizer 1y ago
  For me, the real question is why all these neolib governments are insisting on - spending all their political capital on - these things that have no constituency demanding them? The only people telling UK citizens that they suddenly need digital ID are ministers in the government. Who exactly are they working for? Of course, that question is asked by me in bad faith. You'll see exactly who they're working for when they are voted out and go to work for them directly. You can see now when you see who their ex-colleagues work for. So the real question is how long with the populace tolerate these massively unpopular governments, that are in-place due to historical electoral exclusion systems and media collusion, instituting massive authoritarian changes and moving more and more power into the executive and the private sector? Why have these historically 2-party countries had their 2 parties completely merge on policy matters (other than goofy wedge issues that are intentionally kept unresolved), and even combined are not even carrying majorities anymore? And how much can we hope for different out of the recently-small, disorganized, personality-driven "populist" parties who are vying to defeat them and almost getting majorities? Are they just greenfield corruption projects by the same people, to avoid or recycle the old corruption networks? Is there any possible way we can get politicians to work on all of the obvious stuff falling apart rather than spending all of their time pandering to authoritarian billionaires for life-changing amounts of cash?
  - bethekidyouwant 1y ago
    My only comment is: when has it not been this way? I suspect if you do identify the ‘glory years’ that it’s still a very small window
- belter 1y ago
  This is again Oracle and the Tony Blair Institute... https://thecounterbalance.substack.com/p/digital-ids-big-techs-latest-power https://thecounterbalance.substack.com/p/digital-ids-big-tec...
  - ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
    Tony Blair, the war criminal?
    - belter 1y ago
      The one and only: https://apublica.org/2025/10/inside-tony-blairs-toxic-tech-lobbying-machine/ https://apublica.org/2025/10/inside-tony-blairs-toxic-tech-l...
- shrubhub 1y ago
  You don't need a passport to have a job. A digital ID could be handy in loads of places - like showing you're eligible for hospital care, voting, stuff employment... Even buying a drink! (not everyone drives). Most countries have them and it's not for no reason. Whether we can trust our government, though, is a different matter.
  - jbstack 1y ago
    Is anyone in the UK really complaining that it's difficult today to show you're eligible for hospital care, voting, employment, or buying a drink? I can't honestly remember a single time in my life where someone told me this was a problem for them. It's certainly never been a problem for me. This sounds to me like fixing a problem we don't really have. At a time when we have plenty of genuine and serious problems that need fixing and aren't being fixed. I'd rather see my tax money spent on tackling climate change, or decreasing hospital wait times, or hiring more teachers, or reducing dependence on Russian oil, or any of the other countless things that would make a genuine difference. Instead, we're going to blow a load of money on something that isn't going to improve people's lives (except maybe in a very negligible way) or make the world safer, and is probably going to erode my privacy and security.
  - kklisura 1y ago
    > Whether we can trust our government, though, is a different matter. (FYI Not a UK citizen) But it does matter. If I go to a protest against the government will I be rejected of all those services since someone flagged my ID?
  - ajsnigrutin 1y ago
    Can't you do that with a normal ID card? Digital ID makes it easier for governments to mandat "real name" polcies when registering online (reddit, HN, etc.), because you already have a digital ID, and if you want to make a reddit account, you'll have to link it with your real name, and this was hard until now.
  - Leynos 1y ago
    You do need to demonstrate eligibility to take up work in the UK and that is usually done by passport or something other form of id demonstrating your nationality and right to work. You shouldn't need id to vote or access healthcare.
- squidbeak 1y ago
  The proposed format cuts out government, except as a dumb reference. The verification services are private companies, whose responsibilities are tightly defined under law in the recent Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. These services poll government departments during onboarding, or when data changes or is added. The ID itself isn't a single ID, rather a wallet organizing bundles of data attributes into any number of IDs. I was skeptical at first, but looking at it, I'm convinced it strengthens citizens, by giving them some control over their data.
- madeofpalk 1y ago
  It's even stupider. There's already a digital ID system for immigrants to prove their right to work.
- harryf 1y ago
  It’s not being driven by the UK. Check out all the other countries in the West rolling out Digital ID and it’s clearly coordinated just from the timing
- octoberfranklin 1y ago
  I honestly don’t understand what the perceived advantages for the government are? Surveillance.
cedws 1y ago
Tell you what, if you claw back the £100m+ blown on Michelle Mone's shitty PPE and other countless millions in corrupt COVID-era contracts then you can spend it on a digital ID scheme. But don't you dare tell us there's no money, threaten to raise our taxes, then flush half a billion on a scheme nobody wants.
ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
The problem is that the UK government has a terrible track record with IT projects. How long until yet another laptop is stolen whilst on a train, only this time having all our IDs on it? Also, this is just a Tony Blair thing and by all rights he should be tried and imprisoned as a war criminal for lying and dragging us into the Iraq war on completely false pretences.
- Nextgrid 1y ago
  I concur on the incompetence (or rather, corruption disguised as incompetence) of the UK gov (and most others for that matter) when it comes to tech, but: > only this time having all our IDs on it? But what's the actual risk? The data that would be on a digital ID is just a certificate linking basic personal details and foreign keys to your records in various gov DBs (HMRC, NHS, etc). This is the same data every company already collects and has leaked dozens of times. The actual ability to cryptographically prove your identity can't leak because it would be linked to possession of your private key (which is stored in your phone's HSM, or a smartcard, etc)... and even if the system did not use actual cryptography and just shared secrets and all of them were to leak, the government is just going to say that this iteration of digital IDs is no longer valid for ID verification and we're back to the current system of non-cryptographic document verification approaches.
  - ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
    > But what's the actual risk? The data that would be on a digital ID is just a certificate linking basic personal details and foreign keys to your records in various gov DBs (HMRC, NHS, etc). This is the same data every company already collects and has leaked dozens of times. The risk is letting criminals/politicians correlate all the information on individuals and I can imagine that it'll be tied into age verification too ("protect the children"), so your browsing history could then be used to blackmail/compromise you. > The actual ability to cryptographically prove your identity can't leak because it would be linked to possession of your private key (which is stored in your phone's HSM, or a smartcard, etc)... and even if the system did not use actual cryptography and just shared secrets and all of them were to leak, the government is just going to say that this iteration of digital IDs is no longer valid for ID verification and we're back to the current system of non-cryptographic document verification approaches. I don't know how exactly that would work, but from my experience of linux admin, I don't share private keys between devices as that would prevent me being able to revoke any keys that may be leaked. If the system could break in such a way that it was no longer valid for ID verification, then why are we wanting to pay lots of money for a fragile and possibly privacy invading system?
46Bit 1y ago
It’s worth remembering that the status-quo is itself expensive. GOV.UK Verify, the example I know best, burned through a lot of money trying to do digital identity without actually doing ID cards.
- barnabos 1y ago
  The status quo isn't an application. "Digital ID" is a misnomer, it's a government backed application akin to what you'd see in an authoritarian crony state (China, Vietnam, etc). Unbelievable that a western country is signing off on this.
hexbin010 1y ago
It's easy interpreting politicians: "Who will require Digital ID?" -> evasive answer -> answer is everyone "How much will it cost" -> evasive answer -> multiple billions "Will it be a UK company that delivers the project?" -> evasive answer -> no
- graemep 1y ago
  > Will it be a UK company that delivers the project? Does it matter? Anything that relies on smartphones relies on American tech anyway. The govt think that is fine. They are still making govt services more dependent on Americwn big tech. Check who owns the IPs that the new gov.uk single login runs on.
  - hexbin010 1y ago
    I'd want a UK company to do it for security reasons and for the econmic benefit of the UK economy at much as possible. That should be the default position and thus require an argument (a much better one) why a British company/the UK gov should /not/ deliver it. Would you have a problem with a Russian company delivering the project...?
    - graemep 1y ago
      What if an American company delivered it? American companies already control the platforms the apps will run on (so they you cannot secure it against them). On top of that the server side will probably run on an American owned platform too. As fir the economic benefit that implies rejecting the idea that free trade is better, which is a fundamental assumption made by western governments. I actually would like to see it happen, but one aspect is pointless without wider tech sovereignty, and the other would require a revolution to be accepted as a reasonable argument.
_dain_ 1y ago
the stated justification is that it will let the government finally get immigration under control. but ID has never been the bottleneck for immigration enforcement. there have been countless cases where we have someone dead to rights, we know they're in the country illegally (and have committed other crimes besides), yet the judge finds a way to block deportation on ECHR grounds. mark my words, they'll find a "right" to digital ID somewhere in the human rights framework, regardless of immigration status. and then we're back to square one.
ifh-hn 1y ago
I don't have an issue with ID schemes. I have a driving license, passport, veterans card, veterans train card. My issue with this is: 1. Given all the above forms of id I currently have, what's the point of me having a digital one. 2. The assumption I'd have a smartphone for this crap to be tied to. I can already prove who I am, and since I don't use my mobile for id, banking, or anything more that an on the go web browser, audio book/music player why would I even use this? As for stopping illegal workers? This could be done with existing processes if they were correctly enforced, and/or existing firms of id. This government is a joke. They didn't win the election, they just happened to benefit from reform killing the conservative vote. The conservatives were and are a joke, reform are worse and labour are just a useless. I despair for the UK.
- indy 1y ago
  Apathy won the last UK election and we defaulted to a Labour government. They now seem determined to introduce this digital ID system regardless of how unpopular it is.
- Nextgrid 1y ago
  > Given all the above forms of id I currently have, what's the point of me having a digital one. The issue is that none of those can be really used online, except the passport if used on an NFC-enabled device. This means services that need identity verification for legitimate reasons like banks, interacting with the government for sensitive matters like tax refunds/benefits/etc and so on can't actually verify your identity; so they either have to spend money on snake oil like "fraud protection", bullshit camera-based document verification combined with credit reference agencies (a whole other privacy nightmare), or they have to make you visit in-person and maintain facilities to do so. Being able to prove your identity cryptographically would be a significant advantage and remove the need for a lot of parasites like "fraud protection" services, CRAs, etc. You could actually do legally-binding signatures online, removing the need for security theatre such as paper documents (which are trivial to falsify, but enough people don't know how to use Paint that there is belief they are secure enough).
  - ifh-hn 1y ago
Nextgrid 1y ago
For all the concerns about surveillance/tracking/etc, the only saving grace is that the UK government is too dysfunctional and incompetent to demand and oversee a proper implementation. The digital ID scheme is the latest reason for politicians to get paid for busywork and funnel money to an incompetent private-sector contractor (obviously this is not going to be built in-house by the excellent GDS - Government Digital Service) who will go over time and budget and deliver something not fit for any purpose (whether beneficial to citizens or hostile such a tracking).
onraglanroad 1y ago
In 2015 the Labour party went from having 41 out of 59 Members of Parliament (MPs) in Scotland, to 1. That one was Ian Murray, so the Labour party has felt it needs to give him a serious position regardless of his actual ability.
mistrial9 1y ago
related -- State of California has spent over $500 million on a Next Generation 911 (NG911) system designed to modernize its emergency response network, which includes features like text, video, and precise caller location capabilities, and has already built a regional, multi-vendor network that is fully functional and tested in areas like Central and Los Angeles. Despite this, the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) has decided to abandon the existing NG911 system, which was designed with built-in redundancy to prevent statewide outages, in favor of a new single-vendor network. This reversal will cost an estimated additional $700 million to maintain the outdated legacy system for another five to seven years while the new system is developed, with the total cost potentially exceeding a billion dollars. Critics argue this decision wastes taxpayer money, undermines public safety, and increases the risk of a statewide 911 outage, as the new single-vendor model lacks the regional backup that protects the current NG911 system.

70 points by Bender 1y ago

The whole thing is completely mad, you need to show your passport to an employer or otherwise prove your identity before starting any job already… so what is this weird desire to completely track people really about? I honestly don’t understand what the perceived advantages for the government are? The UK is probably one of the most surveilled countries in the world already.

IanCal 1y ago
No you don’t. A birth certificate can be used for example along with a letter from a government agency. Also expired passports are fine.
michaelt 1y ago
Let's quote the godfather of British ID cards, Tony Blair:- > Why is TikTok so successful? Because its algorithms establish your personal preferences so quickly and satisfy them with their content. How do they do that? By accumulating your data and using the services of a huge number of computer engineers to make those algorithms so effective. [...] > Imagine that all your health information was in one place: easy, with your permission, for anyone anywhere in the health service to see. That your passport, driving licence, anything you need to prove your identity, were in one simple digital wallet, unique to you. That you could purchase and pay for any goods or services using your digital ID. https://institute.global/insights/tech-and-digitalisation/tony-blair-digital-id-is-the-disruption-the-uk-desperately-needs https://institute.global/insights/tech-and-digitalisation/to... So the proposal isn't just a mandatory ID card - it's also the unification of all government databases. Combining tax records, driving licenses, passports, NHS records, benefits, vehicle registration, the ability to get a job, the ability to rent a house and the ability to get a bank account into one unified super-database (with an app) The ID being fully digital will also be a boon for the financial services industry. Today banks extending large loans can afford to check people's documents properly even if it takes a few days and a visit to a bank branch. But what payday loan companies that want to loan someone £15 for a takeaway curry on sunday evening? They don't have the margin, the time or the physical presence to check IDs properly, and often lose money to fraud because of it.
- andy_ppp 1y ago
  Why do governments think IT projects like this are even possible for them to accomplish? I can guarantee already the requirements of such a system are impossible to capture and then the developers and difficulty to build such a system with probably a thousand or more people working on it for 10 years and billions we can’t currently afford. I predict endless delays, a toxic work environment and the resulting system will not even end up working and will eventually be scrapped probably in favour of smashing everyone’s data into an LLM. Sigh.
  - adammarples 1y ago
    Because it has been accomplished already in many countries
    - andy_ppp 1y ago
      A mandatory ID system is not the same as a unified system for all government data which is the suggested real plan
- dijit 1y ago
  I always bring it up in these threads, but as a dual british/swedish citizen I find it incredulous. Sweden has a national database and a national ID card system, and it makes my life in Sweden a lot better. That said, I don’t trust the UK government, I haven’t trusted any UK government in my adult lifetime and I am coming into middle-age. Solve that problem first, maybe?
  - nialv7 1y ago
    I am indifferent to having/not having a government ID. But I just find it incredibly stupid for the government to introduce it now given the current political atmosphere.
    - dijit 1y ago
      Have you got a license for that opinion? (I agree with you)
Traubenfuchs 1y ago
Follow the money. Someone will get a lot of money to implement and maintain this system.
- Nextgrid 1y ago
  Someone will get a lot of money* *implementation and maintenance optional and may be subject to additional fees
pessimizer 1y ago
For me, the real question is why all these neolib governments are insisting on - spending all their political capital on - these things that have no constituency demanding them? The only people telling UK citizens that they suddenly need digital ID are ministers in the government. Who exactly are they working for? Of course, that question is asked by me in bad faith. You'll see exactly who they're working for when they are voted out and go to work for them directly. You can see now when you see who their ex-colleagues work for. So the real question is how long with the populace tolerate these massively unpopular governments, that are in-place due to historical electoral exclusion systems and media collusion, instituting massive authoritarian changes and moving more and more power into the executive and the private sector? Why have these historically 2-party countries had their 2 parties completely merge on policy matters (other than goofy wedge issues that are intentionally kept unresolved), and even combined are not even carrying majorities anymore? And how much can we hope for different out of the recently-small, disorganized, personality-driven "populist" parties who are vying to defeat them and almost getting majorities? Are they just greenfield corruption projects by the same people, to avoid or recycle the old corruption networks? Is there any possible way we can get politicians to work on all of the obvious stuff falling apart rather than spending all of their time pandering to authoritarian billionaires for life-changing amounts of cash?
- bethekidyouwant 1y ago
  My only comment is: when has it not been this way? I suspect if you do identify the ‘glory years’ that it’s still a very small window
belter 1y ago
This is again Oracle and the Tony Blair Institute... https://thecounterbalance.substack.com/p/digital-ids-big-techs-latest-power https://thecounterbalance.substack.com/p/digital-ids-big-tec...
- ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
  Tony Blair, the war criminal?
  - belter 1y ago
    The one and only: https://apublica.org/2025/10/inside-tony-blairs-toxic-tech-lobbying-machine/ https://apublica.org/2025/10/inside-tony-blairs-toxic-tech-l...
shrubhub 1y ago
You don't need a passport to have a job. A digital ID could be handy in loads of places - like showing you're eligible for hospital care, voting, stuff employment... Even buying a drink! (not everyone drives). Most countries have them and it's not for no reason. Whether we can trust our government, though, is a different matter.
- jbstack 1y ago
  Is anyone in the UK really complaining that it's difficult today to show you're eligible for hospital care, voting, employment, or buying a drink? I can't honestly remember a single time in my life where someone told me this was a problem for them. It's certainly never been a problem for me. This sounds to me like fixing a problem we don't really have. At a time when we have plenty of genuine and serious problems that need fixing and aren't being fixed. I'd rather see my tax money spent on tackling climate change, or decreasing hospital wait times, or hiring more teachers, or reducing dependence on Russian oil, or any of the other countless things that would make a genuine difference. Instead, we're going to blow a load of money on something that isn't going to improve people's lives (except maybe in a very negligible way) or make the world safer, and is probably going to erode my privacy and security.
- kklisura 1y ago
  > Whether we can trust our government, though, is a different matter. (FYI Not a UK citizen) But it does matter. If I go to a protest against the government will I be rejected of all those services since someone flagged my ID?
- ajsnigrutin 1y ago
  Can't you do that with a normal ID card? Digital ID makes it easier for governments to mandat "real name" polcies when registering online (reddit, HN, etc.), because you already have a digital ID, and if you want to make a reddit account, you'll have to link it with your real name, and this was hard until now.
- Leynos 1y ago
  You do need to demonstrate eligibility to take up work in the UK and that is usually done by passport or something other form of id demonstrating your nationality and right to work. You shouldn't need id to vote or access healthcare.
squidbeak 1y ago
The proposed format cuts out government, except as a dumb reference. The verification services are private companies, whose responsibilities are tightly defined under law in the recent Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. These services poll government departments during onboarding, or when data changes or is added. The ID itself isn't a single ID, rather a wallet organizing bundles of data attributes into any number of IDs. I was skeptical at first, but looking at it, I'm convinced it strengthens citizens, by giving them some control over their data.
madeofpalk 1y ago
It's even stupider. There's already a digital ID system for immigrants to prove their right to work.
harryf 1y ago
It’s not being driven by the UK. Check out all the other countries in the West rolling out Digital ID and it’s clearly coordinated just from the timing
octoberfranklin 1y ago
I honestly don’t understand what the perceived advantages for the government are? Surveillance.

cedws 1y ago

Tell you what, if you claw back the £100m+ blown on Michelle Mone's shitty PPE and other countless millions in corrupt COVID-era contracts then you can spend it on a digital ID scheme. But don't you dare tell us there's no money, threaten to raise our taxes, then flush half a billion on a scheme nobody wants.

ndsipa_pomu 1y ago

The problem is that the UK government has a terrible track record with IT projects. How long until yet another laptop is stolen whilst on a train, only this time having all our IDs on it? Also, this is just a Tony Blair thing and by all rights he should be tried and imprisoned as a war criminal for lying and dragging us into the Iraq war on completely false pretences.

Nextgrid 1y ago
I concur on the incompetence (or rather, corruption disguised as incompetence) of the UK gov (and most others for that matter) when it comes to tech, but: > only this time having all our IDs on it? But what's the actual risk? The data that would be on a digital ID is just a certificate linking basic personal details and foreign keys to your records in various gov DBs (HMRC, NHS, etc). This is the same data every company already collects and has leaked dozens of times. The actual ability to cryptographically prove your identity can't leak because it would be linked to possession of your private key (which is stored in your phone's HSM, or a smartcard, etc)... and even if the system did not use actual cryptography and just shared secrets and all of them were to leak, the government is just going to say that this iteration of digital IDs is no longer valid for ID verification and we're back to the current system of non-cryptographic document verification approaches.
- ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
  > But what's the actual risk? The data that would be on a digital ID is just a certificate linking basic personal details and foreign keys to your records in various gov DBs (HMRC, NHS, etc). This is the same data every company already collects and has leaked dozens of times. The risk is letting criminals/politicians correlate all the information on individuals and I can imagine that it'll be tied into age verification too ("protect the children"), so your browsing history could then be used to blackmail/compromise you. > The actual ability to cryptographically prove your identity can't leak because it would be linked to possession of your private key (which is stored in your phone's HSM, or a smartcard, etc)... and even if the system did not use actual cryptography and just shared secrets and all of them were to leak, the government is just going to say that this iteration of digital IDs is no longer valid for ID verification and we're back to the current system of non-cryptographic document verification approaches. I don't know how exactly that would work, but from my experience of linux admin, I don't share private keys between devices as that would prevent me being able to revoke any keys that may be leaked. If the system could break in such a way that it was no longer valid for ID verification, then why are we wanting to pay lots of money for a fragile and possibly privacy invading system?

46Bit 1y ago

It’s worth remembering that the status-quo is itself expensive. GOV.UK Verify, the example I know best, burned through a lot of money trying to do digital identity without actually doing ID cards.

barnabos 1y ago
The status quo isn't an application. "Digital ID" is a misnomer, it's a government backed application akin to what you'd see in an authoritarian crony state (China, Vietnam, etc). Unbelievable that a western country is signing off on this.

hexbin010 1y ago

It's easy interpreting politicians: "Who will require Digital ID?" -> evasive answer -> answer is everyone "How much will it cost" -> evasive answer -> multiple billions "Will it be a UK company that delivers the project?" -> evasive answer -> no

graemep 1y ago
> Will it be a UK company that delivers the project? Does it matter? Anything that relies on smartphones relies on American tech anyway. The govt think that is fine. They are still making govt services more dependent on Americwn big tech. Check who owns the IPs that the new gov.uk single login runs on.
- hexbin010 1y ago
  I'd want a UK company to do it for security reasons and for the econmic benefit of the UK economy at much as possible. That should be the default position and thus require an argument (a much better one) why a British company/the UK gov should /not/ deliver it. Would you have a problem with a Russian company delivering the project...?
  - graemep 1y ago
    What if an American company delivered it? American companies already control the platforms the apps will run on (so they you cannot secure it against them). On top of that the server side will probably run on an American owned platform too. As fir the economic benefit that implies rejecting the idea that free trade is better, which is a fundamental assumption made by western governments. I actually would like to see it happen, but one aspect is pointless without wider tech sovereignty, and the other would require a revolution to be accepted as a reasonable argument.

_dain_ 1y ago

the stated justification is that it will let the government finally get immigration under control. but ID has never been the bottleneck for immigration enforcement. there have been countless cases where we have someone dead to rights, we know they're in the country illegally (and have committed other crimes besides), yet the judge finds a way to block deportation on ECHR grounds. mark my words, they'll find a "right" to digital ID somewhere in the human rights framework, regardless of immigration status. and then we're back to square one.

ifh-hn 1y ago

I don't have an issue with ID schemes. I have a driving license, passport, veterans card, veterans train card. My issue with this is: 1. Given all the above forms of id I currently have, what's the point of me having a digital one. 2. The assumption I'd have a smartphone for this crap to be tied to. I can already prove who I am, and since I don't use my mobile for id, banking, or anything more that an on the go web browser, audio book/music player why would I even use this? As for stopping illegal workers? This could be done with existing processes if they were correctly enforced, and/or existing firms of id. This government is a joke. They didn't win the election, they just happened to benefit from reform killing the conservative vote. The conservatives were and are a joke, reform are worse and labour are just a useless. I despair for the UK.

indy 1y ago
Apathy won the last UK election and we defaulted to a Labour government. They now seem determined to introduce this digital ID system regardless of how unpopular it is.
Nextgrid 1y ago
> Given all the above forms of id I currently have, what's the point of me having a digital one. The issue is that none of those can be really used online, except the passport if used on an NFC-enabled device. This means services that need identity verification for legitimate reasons like banks, interacting with the government for sensitive matters like tax refunds/benefits/etc and so on can't actually verify your identity; so they either have to spend money on snake oil like "fraud protection", bullshit camera-based document verification combined with credit reference agencies (a whole other privacy nightmare), or they have to make you visit in-person and maintain facilities to do so. Being able to prove your identity cryptographically would be a significant advantage and remove the need for a lot of parasites like "fraud protection" services, CRAs, etc. You could actually do legally-binding signatures online, removing the need for security theatre such as paper documents (which are trivial to falsify, but enough people don't know how to use Paint that there is belief they are secure enough).
- ifh-hn 1y ago

Nextgrid 1y ago

For all the concerns about surveillance/tracking/etc, the only saving grace is that the UK government is too dysfunctional and incompetent to demand and oversee a proper implementation. The digital ID scheme is the latest reason for politicians to get paid for busywork and funnel money to an incompetent private-sector contractor (obviously this is not going to be built in-house by the excellent GDS - Government Digital Service) who will go over time and budget and deliver something not fit for any purpose (whether beneficial to citizens or hostile such a tracking).

onraglanroad 1y ago

In 2015 the Labour party went from having 41 out of 59 Members of Parliament (MPs) in Scotland, to 1. That one was Ian Murray, so the Labour party has felt it needs to give him a serious position regardless of his actual ability.

mistrial9 1y ago

related -- State of California has spent over $500 million on a Next Generation 911 (NG911) system designed to modernize its emergency response network, which includes features like text, video, and precise caller location capabilities, and has already built a regional, multi-vendor network that is fully functional and tested in areas like Central and Los Angeles. Despite this, the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) has decided to abandon the existing NG911 system, which was designed with built-in redundancy to prevent statewide outages, in favor of a new single-vendor network. This reversal will cost an estimated additional $700 million to maintain the outdated legacy system for another five to seven years while the new system is developed, with the total cost potentially exceeding a billion dollars. Critics argue this decision wastes taxpayer money, undermines public safety, and increases the risk of a statewide 911 outage, as the new single-vendor model lacks the regional backup that protects the current NG911 system.