5 ms·

It's like people want to hand over scans of their passport and/or driving license to random businesses again and again, every time the need to prove who they ar

by phatfish 11mo ago

It's like people want to hand over scans of their passport and/or driving license to random businesses again and again, every time the need to prove who they are; and have their ID documents littered in Outlook mailboxes or company file shares with zero permissions. Or be forced to install yet another ID app from a private service that requires you have an iPhone or "compatible" Android. The debate about this in the UK is just crazy. Notwithstanding the current "febrile" state of politics. It has always received weirdly vitriolic push back. What really is the Government going to do with a digital ID service that they can't do already? I just want to be able to give estate agents, solicitors, a bank, etc my ID number and a time-limited code that proves I am in control of that ID (or however that might work), and be done with it.

brigandish 11mo ago
> It has always received weirdly vitriolic push back. Because, as the Home Secretary herself observed, it would fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and the state. > What really is the Government going to do with a digital ID service that they can't do already? This gives the impression of having done no research into a topic of which you now opine opposition to be "weirdly vitriolic". We live in an age of search engines and GPTs, free encyclopaedias and entire lecture series online, and even libraries are still open and free, but you've done nothing to get past the very first thoughts you've had on the subject. Was that weirdly vitriolic, or someone pointing out that an argument to undermine everyone's rights should have some effort behind it?
- wholinator2 11mo ago
  I dunno man, your reply doesn't sound _kind_. Maybe you could try to explain the point you're defending rather than ad hominem and overextrapolate a perceived insult. I genuinely want to learn and it's frustrating that your comment does not do that.
  - jmye 11mo ago
    Calling their objections “weirdly vitriolic” belies both a complaint about “kindness”, and shows an explicit desire to not learn a single thing. Perhaps, if you have genuine curiosity in the future, you should be thoughtful about the questions you ask, and the ad hominem attacks you make in the asking, rather than whining after the fact because people didn’t excuse your lack of tactful interaction sufficiently? Or just complain about “kindness” more - it’s easier to accuse others of being mean than to look in a mirror, I suppose.
    - cindyllm 11mo ago
      [dead]
    - bigstrat2003 11mo ago
      The person to whom you are replying is not the person who said the "weirdly vitriolic" remark. You're chastising someone who didn't do the thing you are (rightly) opposing.
      - jmye 11mo ago
        Ahh, fair enough, I misread/failed to read the username. Thank you for pointing that out!
  - brigandish 11mo ago
    If what you say were to be true then an accusation of ad hominem would itself be ad hominem. I addressed their unkind and ad hominem argument. If you think me unkind then I will shrug and say, in hacker parlance, they should RTFM. They have not put in the slightest work before opining and criticising, and on something as important as this? May they receive such weird vitriol until they learn to at least Google first. Doesn't it automatically run a GPT for you now? They, and surely the people around them, will thank me for instilling such basic discipline.
throwaway2037 11mo ago
Can anyone explain the history of "self ID" rules and laws in the UK? It seems like you do not have to prove your ID to the police. It is the reverse. As an outsider, I don't understand it.
- brigandish 11mo ago
  The fundamental proposition on which all of English culture flows from is that of innocence. For example, in court, you do not have to prove your innocence because you are presumed innocent. In the case of ID cards and the like, the state does not rule over the populace, it rules on behalf of the populace. I am innocent and they work for me. Hence, I do not have to prove to some random government agent who I am unless it is relevant to the task they perform, e.g. - the police have a reasonable and justifiable suspicion that I am engaged in criminal activity - an immigration officer may only ask for my details when I am crossing a border or, again, have some reasonable and justifiable suspicion that I am in need of deportation etc. - Or perhaps I just need some documents from my local municipal office, and they rightly ask who I am and to prove it before giving out my private info. Me going about my business is no business of the government's until I start abusing the rules. The opposite view is that: - I am ruled over - Any agent of the government can question me and prevent me from going about my business Of course, in practice, the application of such liberal principles like not requiring ID to go about my day are often not done well, but to change the principle is to change the entire character of the most fundamental aspects of Englishness. You'll note, much of the continent lurches between different forms of collectivist oppressive government whereas, until of late, the UK has not. This is because of the lack of this fundamental principle there, I am sure of that, and those calling for these kind of ID laws, digital or otherwise, are not to be entertained. The most interesting case will be the USA, where they still care about the principles of English liberty, far more than the English do.
  - schneehertz 11mo ago
    Oh, bro, you're practically living in 1689
    - 11mo ago
komali2 11mo ago
> What really is the Government going to do with a digital ID service that they can't do already? In 20 years, the UK suffers a terrorist attack just before an election, and then elects a ultra right wing government on a platform of "remigrating foreigners." You're a British born citizen but your mom fled from Iran in the 80s and immigrated to the UK. If you don't have digital ID, and the government decides to "remigrate all Iranians," they have to collect information from several different government groups, e.g. maybe your mom got a passport in which case one government agency may just know she's a non-native British citizen but nothing more. Maybe your immigration agency stands up to the government and engages in legal battles to prevent turning over immigration information. However if there's a digital ID system that lets the government instantly know everything about a person, you lose the protection of friction. I believe this is one of the fundamental premises of representative liberal democracy, and one of its most redeeming features: balance of power is spread not just between branches of government, but through ministries/departments/agencies, which makes it much harder for a despot to do despotism.
- charcircuit 11mo ago
  Being able to break the law is never a good thing. Immigration agencies can still fight whatever after people have been kicked out as has been decided. Government inefficiency should never be celebrated.
  - komali2 11mo ago
    > Immigration agencies can still fight whatever after people have been kicked out as has been decided. Given that dragnet operations result in all sorts of random people being deported, including citizens, and given that sometimes these people are deported to countries where they face violence or death, you are arguing for state-sponsored violence without due process. Other than people immigrating, what other circumstances do you feel justify the elimination of due process?
    - charcircuit 11mo ago
      People should not be hiding in our country to escape death. If someone was willing to break the law that heavily, they should be deported and faced judgements as soon as possible as those are the people we should be removing from society as fast as possible.

brigandish 11mo ago

> It has always received weirdly vitriolic push back. Because, as the Home Secretary herself observed, it would fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and the state. > What really is the Government going to do with a digital ID service that they can't do already? This gives the impression of having done no research into a topic of which you now opine opposition to be "weirdly vitriolic". We live in an age of search engines and GPTs, free encyclopaedias and entire lecture series online, and even libraries are still open and free, but you've done nothing to get past the very first thoughts you've had on the subject. Was that weirdly vitriolic, or someone pointing out that an argument to undermine everyone's rights should have some effort behind it?

wholinator2 11mo ago
I dunno man, your reply doesn't sound _kind_. Maybe you could try to explain the point you're defending rather than ad hominem and overextrapolate a perceived insult. I genuinely want to learn and it's frustrating that your comment does not do that.
- jmye 11mo ago
  Calling their objections “weirdly vitriolic” belies both a complaint about “kindness”, and shows an explicit desire to not learn a single thing. Perhaps, if you have genuine curiosity in the future, you should be thoughtful about the questions you ask, and the ad hominem attacks you make in the asking, rather than whining after the fact because people didn’t excuse your lack of tactful interaction sufficiently? Or just complain about “kindness” more - it’s easier to accuse others of being mean than to look in a mirror, I suppose.
  - cindyllm 11mo ago
    [dead]
  - bigstrat2003 11mo ago
    The person to whom you are replying is not the person who said the "weirdly vitriolic" remark. You're chastising someone who didn't do the thing you are (rightly) opposing.
    - jmye 11mo ago
      Ahh, fair enough, I misread/failed to read the username. Thank you for pointing that out!
- brigandish 11mo ago
  If what you say were to be true then an accusation of ad hominem would itself be ad hominem. I addressed their unkind and ad hominem argument. If you think me unkind then I will shrug and say, in hacker parlance, they should RTFM. They have not put in the slightest work before opining and criticising, and on something as important as this? May they receive such weird vitriol until they learn to at least Google first. Doesn't it automatically run a GPT for you now? They, and surely the people around them, will thank me for instilling such basic discipline.

throwaway2037 11mo ago

Can anyone explain the history of "self ID" rules and laws in the UK? It seems like you do not have to prove your ID to the police. It is the reverse. As an outsider, I don't understand it.

brigandish 11mo ago
The fundamental proposition on which all of English culture flows from is that of innocence. For example, in court, you do not have to prove your innocence because you are presumed innocent. In the case of ID cards and the like, the state does not rule over the populace, it rules on behalf of the populace. I am innocent and they work for me. Hence, I do not have to prove to some random government agent who I am unless it is relevant to the task they perform, e.g. - the police have a reasonable and justifiable suspicion that I am engaged in criminal activity - an immigration officer may only ask for my details when I am crossing a border or, again, have some reasonable and justifiable suspicion that I am in need of deportation etc. - Or perhaps I just need some documents from my local municipal office, and they rightly ask who I am and to prove it before giving out my private info. Me going about my business is no business of the government's until I start abusing the rules. The opposite view is that: - I am ruled over - Any agent of the government can question me and prevent me from going about my business Of course, in practice, the application of such liberal principles like not requiring ID to go about my day are often not done well, but to change the principle is to change the entire character of the most fundamental aspects of Englishness. You'll note, much of the continent lurches between different forms of collectivist oppressive government whereas, until of late, the UK has not. This is because of the lack of this fundamental principle there, I am sure of that, and those calling for these kind of ID laws, digital or otherwise, are not to be entertained. The most interesting case will be the USA, where they still care about the principles of English liberty, far more than the English do.
- schneehertz 11mo ago
  Oh, bro, you're practically living in 1689
  - 11mo ago

komali2 11mo ago

> What really is the Government going to do with a digital ID service that they can't do already? In 20 years, the UK suffers a terrorist attack just before an election, and then elects a ultra right wing government on a platform of "remigrating foreigners." You're a British born citizen but your mom fled from Iran in the 80s and immigrated to the UK. If you don't have digital ID, and the government decides to "remigrate all Iranians," they have to collect information from several different government groups, e.g. maybe your mom got a passport in which case one government agency may just know she's a non-native British citizen but nothing more. Maybe your immigration agency stands up to the government and engages in legal battles to prevent turning over immigration information. However if there's a digital ID system that lets the government instantly know everything about a person, you lose the protection of friction. I believe this is one of the fundamental premises of representative liberal democracy, and one of its most redeeming features: balance of power is spread not just between branches of government, but through ministries/departments/agencies, which makes it much harder for a despot to do despotism.

charcircuit 11mo ago
Being able to break the law is never a good thing. Immigration agencies can still fight whatever after people have been kicked out as has been decided. Government inefficiency should never be celebrated.
- komali2 11mo ago
  > Immigration agencies can still fight whatever after people have been kicked out as has been decided. Given that dragnet operations result in all sorts of random people being deported, including citizens, and given that sometimes these people are deported to countries where they face violence or death, you are arguing for state-sponsored violence without due process. Other than people immigrating, what other circumstances do you feel justify the elimination of due process?
  - charcircuit 11mo ago
    People should not be hiding in our country to escape death. If someone was willing to break the law that heavily, they should be deported and faced judgements as soon as possible as those are the people we should be removing from society as fast as possible.