5 ms·

Let's quote the godfather of British ID cards, Tony Blair:- > Why is TikTok so successful? Because its algorithms establish your personal preferences so quickl

by michaelt 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo ago
  Because it has been accomplished already in many countries
  - andy_ppp 11mo ago
    A mandatory ID system is not the same as a unified system for all government data which is the suggested real plan
dijit 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo ago
    Have you got a license for that opinion? (I agree with you)
  - stevehawk 11mo ago
    but now is exactly the time to do it because so many people are mad about immigration and you can blame it on immgrants instead of a thirsty desire to surveil.
- varispeed 11mo ago
  Issue is that national ID in the drawer or your pocket, doesn't send your location to government. Digital ID on the phone is just one update away from doing that. Digital ID becomes a fancy name for ankle tag.
  - dijit 11mo ago
    The digital authentication system is called BankID, but its effectively tied to the government ID due to the same identifier being used (personnummer). Again, the issue is mostly trust. PS: oh dear, oh no, I appear to have offended someone and they’re flagging me, oh dear heavens I must be incorrect then! Woe is me. /s
squidbeak 11mo ago
> 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) Incorrect. The workflow is that the citizen submits their data during onboarding. The app submits the data to its associated verification service, which polls the government API and if the check passes, returns a cryptographic signature for each specific datum, which are then used to generate digital IDs for whatever use. There's no 'unified database'. There doesn't seem to be support for long text formats either. So on NHS records, while your status as a diabetic for instance might be there as an attribute/signature pair, yuor medical commentary wouldn't be. Perhaps that will change later, but long text doesn't appear to be in scope yet.
- salawat 11mo ago
  Cryptographic signature may as well be a foreign key. It's a super database. Just admit it. You aren't fooling anyone with extra layers of indirection. If it can be interrogated in the manner of a super database, has business requirements in parallel to what a super database would be used for, regardless of minutiae of the implementation, it is, a super database. A rose by any other name...
  - squidbeak 11mo ago
    Perhaps you could describe what you imagine the proposal to be, or how you imagine the process to work?
- masfuerte 11mo ago
  Are you talking about what will be stored on the phone? That's basically a distraction. The point is to create a single ID for each person to support a unified super-database. All the chat about smartphones is to make people think that they are in control of the data and how it will be used.
  - squidbeak 11mo ago
    If you are right and that is the point, it isn't described anywhere in the proposal which has been developed over several years. Far from from a "Unified super-database", the government's role is only as reference through an API in front of departmental databases. There's no current proposal to merge them, or assume the role of the verification services who are all third party. Then, there's no single digital identity. The wallet will hold any number of 'digital identities', each tailored to specific purposes. Each of these identities is a bundle of a subset of the attributes/proofs saved in the app. These identities can be generated on the fly in response to a prompt, but seemingly can be manually created too. A couple of examples. For a financial application, you might need to show the financial service you're applying to a comprehensive set of data. But to get into a nightclub, you will only need a single Zero-Knowledge Proof confirming you are over 18. These will be two separate IDs. Can you see how this might strengthen citizens by giving them control over what data they show? Beyond that, there are principles of Purpose Limitation and Minimisation which prevent potential abuse, such as companies demanding information they legally don't need. You appear to be are under a serious misapprehension about the proposal.

andy_ppp 11mo 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 11mo ago
Because it has been accomplished already in many countries
- andy_ppp 11mo ago
  A mandatory ID system is not the same as a unified system for all government data which is the suggested real plan

dijit 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo ago
  Have you got a license for that opinion? (I agree with you)
- stevehawk 11mo ago
  but now is exactly the time to do it because so many people are mad about immigration and you can blame it on immgrants instead of a thirsty desire to surveil.
varispeed 11mo ago
Issue is that national ID in the drawer or your pocket, doesn't send your location to government. Digital ID on the phone is just one update away from doing that. Digital ID becomes a fancy name for ankle tag.
- dijit 11mo ago
  The digital authentication system is called BankID, but its effectively tied to the government ID due to the same identifier being used (personnummer). Again, the issue is mostly trust. PS: oh dear, oh no, I appear to have offended someone and they’re flagging me, oh dear heavens I must be incorrect then! Woe is me. /s

squidbeak 11mo ago

> 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) Incorrect. The workflow is that the citizen submits their data during onboarding. The app submits the data to its associated verification service, which polls the government API and if the check passes, returns a cryptographic signature for each specific datum, which are then used to generate digital IDs for whatever use. There's no 'unified database'. There doesn't seem to be support for long text formats either. So on NHS records, while your status as a diabetic for instance might be there as an attribute/signature pair, yuor medical commentary wouldn't be. Perhaps that will change later, but long text doesn't appear to be in scope yet.

salawat 11mo ago
Cryptographic signature may as well be a foreign key. It's a super database. Just admit it. You aren't fooling anyone with extra layers of indirection. If it can be interrogated in the manner of a super database, has business requirements in parallel to what a super database would be used for, regardless of minutiae of the implementation, it is, a super database. A rose by any other name...
- squidbeak 11mo ago
  Perhaps you could describe what you imagine the proposal to be, or how you imagine the process to work?
masfuerte 11mo ago
Are you talking about what will be stored on the phone? That's basically a distraction. The point is to create a single ID for each person to support a unified super-database. All the chat about smartphones is to make people think that they are in control of the data and how it will be used.
- squidbeak 11mo ago
  If you are right and that is the point, it isn't described anywhere in the proposal which has been developed over several years. Far from from a "Unified super-database", the government's role is only as reference through an API in front of departmental databases. There's no current proposal to merge them, or assume the role of the verification services who are all third party. Then, there's no single digital identity. The wallet will hold any number of 'digital identities', each tailored to specific purposes. Each of these identities is a bundle of a subset of the attributes/proofs saved in the app. These identities can be generated on the fly in response to a prompt, but seemingly can be manually created too. A couple of examples. For a financial application, you might need to show the financial service you're applying to a comprehensive set of data. But to get into a nightclub, you will only need a single Zero-Knowledge Proof confirming you are over 18. These will be two separate IDs. Can you see how this might strengthen citizens by giving them control over what data they show? Beyond that, there are principles of Purpose Limitation and Minimisation which prevent potential abuse, such as companies demanding information they legally don't need. You appear to be are under a serious misapprehension about the proposal.