Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

The same thing is happening in Greece. The new mandatory digital ID replaces and unifies everything about citizens in one place, "to make it easier for government services to share information between each other". It can indeed be useful, but the privacy implications are enormous. Just imagine that a policeman, employer or anybody else with access to the information linked to the ID can instantly view our medical records, tax status and even simpler things like if we've ever been caught driving while drunk. Nobody knows what other information could be attached to it, but it's certain that it can be used to discriminate against us.

The worst part is that we no longer have any power to do something about it. Eventually, after it goes through the testing phase in the UK and Greece (and a few other countries where it's being implemented), this will probably roll out on a global scale, making privacy impossibly. I'm starting to get this feeling that in the next decade, we'll be living in 1984...

??? do not rely on incompetence for privacy.

anyway, privacy is dead - longer conversation, but even if you don't carry your cell, there's cameras everywhere with face/gate recognition.

>The worst part is that we no longer have any power to do something about it.

That's not true. If a large enough mob of citizens went to the capital, burned down the government building and harassed MPs on the street (and followed them to their homes), as recently happened in Nepal and before that in Bangladesh, things would change very quickly.

Exactly! Creativity is dead to so many people.

> Just imagine that a policeman, employer or anybody else with access to the information linked to the ID can instantly view our medical records, tax status and even simpler things like if we've ever been caught driving while drunk

Why would I imagine that? There are privacy implications, but a unique ID doesn't mean everyone has access to all your data at any time for any reason.

All it takes is one breach or vulnerability and then yes, they DO have access to all your data.

Imagine someone steals your driver's license. No biggie.

Now imagine they steal your identity which is linked to everything you ever do.

Do you mean gait recognition?

> The worst part is that we no longer have any power to do something about it.

Perhaps it is time for the Greek to dust off their guillotines.

But that’s already the case without a digital id. It’s not like those accounts aren’t already linked together.

With no privacy though, how do you even talk about it with enough people to organize?

> All it takes is one breach or vulnerability and then yes, they DO have access to all your data.

No they don't. If they breach the health system, they don't have access to tax returns.

Just because people are identified by a single ID number doesn't mean all their data is being stored on the same server. And for purely organizational reasons, that's incredibly unlikely to happen.

And I don't know what you mean by "steal your identity". People's names are date of birth are generally a pretty unique identifier already. It doesn't really matter if systems use that or a single ID number to identify you, or if hackers look you up by your name.

Breach = data for all citizens.

Card = one person, limited use.

But most importantly: a Hitler rises to power = opposition is screwed.

But that's -likely- what it means in the near future, along with 24/7 tracking via observation posts along streets and highways. I wonder when people will start realizing a smaller government is a better government and vote accordingly. When things make a task "easier for the government" your ears should prick up and you should start paying attention. Today's "more efficient democracy" makes for tomorrow's "more efficient autocracy" when everything is already in place

It doesn't have to be dead, that's a choice we made as a society. It's an artificial limitation if people wake up and vote against it while they still can

Maybe I'm too cynical but from where I'm sitting Google and Apple already have all the info about citizens in a giant database that they use for their own purposes. Why are we upset that the government might create a more limited database?

The cows are long since out of the barn on "don't collect a giant database of everyone's personal information"

I'm upset by all of it, which is why I've de-Googled.

Because Google and Apple can't use it to control where and with whom you work, live, play, etc., but the government can.

The accounts generally aren't linked together. Everything about the UK government IT is a huge group of independent systems all pretty much isolated from each other. You can argue over whether that's down to incompetence, organisational turf wars, or good security design.

Which is why you have completely separate account to pay the same government for crossing one specific brige in East London than you do for vehicle tax.

Most government websites do use the same frontend toolkit (a rare win for UK governmental IT) but front completely separate systems.

a) The government can subpoena Google, Apple etc. for whatever information they want - or not even subpoena, often they ask nicely and the companies hand over any data requested.

b) Many people are extremely angry about immigration. They very much want the government to control "where and with whom [certain other people] work, live, play"

When a credential is stolen, its validity across multiple unrelated services is often checked by credential stuffing. That's just one type of simple attack.

Has cybercrime been rendered obsolete with a government credential? Why is this master account immune to theft? On the contrary, it appears to be a credential that once stolen, could be more impactful than having your primary email account and phone compromised.

It's reasonable to be concerned even just from an infosec perspective.

Is this a _could_ happen or _has_ happened type problem?

I'm trying to understand if it is speculative or if we have a base-rate for occurrence.

What master account are you even talking about? That's not what this is.

The subject was a system being breached.

And the account you set up for a driver's license is generally different from the one for your health care. If you're reusing the same password for both it doesn't matter if they're linked by the same digital ID number or the same email address or just the same name and birthday.

A digital ID number isn't changing anything here.

In the UK's own post linked below (also in the OP), they describe what's more than a digital ID number. It's credentials. Which humans are bad at handling. And there are always implementation flaws, because we're humans.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-digital-id-scheme-to-...

Ah, good old Godwin's law...

If a Hitler rises to power you will be screwed with or without an ID card, so please don't use such a silly argument.

In the UK, if this comment could be traced to your ID/address, you'd be arrested likely on terrorism charges.

Doesnt have to be a Hitler, imagining the worst case scenario for laws is absolutely apt.

Consider the Australian Access and Assistance bill. Among other things, it permits ministers to issue TCN's verbally. As far as we know (theres no oversight) this hasnt been done. But its concerning that the government can verbally require a corporation to (open endedly) change app functionality.

It would be better if Jim Hitler, had to fight the existing democracy to erode our freedoms, rather than just having to ask a minister to make it so.

Its absolutely better to assume the worst case than the best.

How can they do this? The next election in UK is in 4 years.

Not if I was a Labor supporter: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/aug/15/suspended-l...

The same way people did before the internet? The American revolution didn't require E2E encrypted communication, nor did the French one.

Lol yes, bad auto complete :-)

I think you're misunderstanding the article. When it says:

> Digital credentials will be stored directly on people’s own device

This is a credential you show. It's visual. It's not a login password.

I mean they could be more tightly integrated but any agency could match one account with another any time they felt like it

He was acquitted by a jury. Do you think Keir Starmer is bribing juries when the defendant is a Labour supporter or something? I'm sorry if that sounds flippant, but what exactly is your assumption about the underlying mechanism here? If there were some sort of Labour cabal controlling the justice system then this person would never have been arrested and tried in the first place.

No, but the government also didn't have the communication and organization ability either. Imagine if the British generals could have communicated in real-time with London, or had spy satellites that could watch the revolutionary troops in real time, or had the ability to fire missiles thousands of miles with extreme precision. There would absolutely be no USA if they had

The worst genocides in history were commited by governments against their own citizens. Central databases like the UK proposal is a bad idea if your concerned about current or future bad actor states.

American companies, whilst pulling off some seriously unpleasant capatalistic practices, haven't committed genocide at least!

Is your theory that somehow the US government is prepared to commit a genocide but not prepared to make a copy of Google's database?