←back to thread

Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

(www.reuters.com)
525 points alex77456 | 5 comments | 26 Sep 25 02:09 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
aftergibson ◴[26 Sep 25 11:52 UTC] No.45385420[source]▶
A secure, optional digital ID could be useful. But not in today’s UK. Why? Because the state has already shown it can’t be trusted with our data.

- Snoopers’ Charter (Investigatory Powers Act 2016): ISPs must keep a year’s worth of records of which websites you visit. More than 40 agencies—from MI5 to the Welsh Ambulance Service—can request it. MI5 has already broken the rules and kept data it shouldn’t have.

- Encryption backdoors: Ministers can issue “Technical Capability Notices” to force tech firms to weaken or bypass end-to-end encryption.

- Online Safety Act: Expands content-scanning powers that experts warn could undermine privacy for everyone.

- Palantir deals: The government has given £1.5 billion+ in contracts to a US surveillance firm that builds predictive-policing tools and runs the NHS’s new Federated Data Platform. Many of those deals are secret.

- Wall-to-wall cameras: Millions of CCTV cameras already make the UK one of the most surveilled countries in the world.

A universal digital ID would plug straight into this ecosystem, creating an always-on, uniquely identified record of where you go and what you do. Even if paper or card options exist on paper, smartphone-based systems will dominate in practice, leaving those without phones excluded or coerced.

I’m not against digital identity in principle. But until the UK government proves it can protect basic privacy—by rolling back mass data retention, ending encryption backdoor demands, and enforcing genuine oversight—any national digital ID is a surveillance power-grab waiting to happen.

I'm certain it's worked well in other countries, but I have zero trust in the UK government to handle this responsibility.

replies(21): >>45385507 #>>45387492 #>>45389428 #>>45389950 #>>45390081 #>>45390083 #>>45390337 #>>45390348 #>>45390643 #>>45390732 #>>45391157 #>>45391185 #>>45391616 #>>45391657 #>>45392188 #>>45392686 #>>45394187 #>>45394216 #>>45397954 #>>45402490 #>>45403873 #
ghusto ◴[26 Sep 25 15:17 UTC] No.45387492[source]▶
Was reading through your post, finding it difficult to find fault with anything you were saying, but something wasn't sitting right. And then ...

> I'm certain it's worked well in other countries

It has! In the Netherlands for example, it's just an incredibly convenient system, and if there's anything dodgy going on I'm not aware of it.

So what makes the UK so different to the Netherlands? Genuine question, because I really don't know. My only guess is that the people of the Netherlands hold their politicians to account, whereas nothing ever seems to happen to UK politicians whose corruption is so severe that they're sometimes literally criminal.

replies(7): >>45387970 #>>45389200 #>>45389275 #>>45389932 #>>45390432 #>>45390469 #>>45391280 #
jonex ◴[26 Sep 25 15:57 UTC] No.45387970[source]▶
It's the difference between proportional voting vs winner takes it all. In the latter case you can't really hold politicians accountable, as you will have to choose between effectively throwing your vote away or voting for the one opposition candidate, that often will be just as bad.

While the UK have some level of representativeness, each circuit has a winner takes it all structure, making change quite hard to achieve on a larger scale.

replies(3): >>45389183 #>>45389287 #>>45393398 #
HPsquared ◴[26 Sep 25 17:51 UTC] No.45389183[source]▶
This might be a "grass is greener" thing. Do elected representatives actually have higher approval rating, or enact policies that better fit with public opinion, under proportional systems? Sure it'd probably make things a little better, but it won't actually solve anything hard, I think. All Western countries are struggling (and mostly failing) to deal with the same problems regardless of details like electoral system.
replies(1): >>45389410 #
ghusto ◴[26 Sep 25 18:16 UTC] No.45389410[source]▶
With proportionate representation you get what _should_ happen, in my opinion, which is sometimes nothing. If the coalition can't decide on something, then it doesn't happen, which is the correct outcome because not enough people agree about it. It represents the people (who also can not agree on it).

The alternative is a decision that most people don't agree with.

replies(2): >>45389556 #>>45390137 #
1. HPsquared ◴[26 Sep 25 18:29 UTC] No.45389556{3}[source]▶
My view is it's always organised elites making the decisions, no matter the system. Nominally left-wing parties often make brazen right-wing moves, and vice-versa. The votes that matter are those of the MPs, Congress members etc. which are always influenced by a range of factors and organised factions. That's the actual decision-making mechanism.
replies(2): >>45389615 #>>45404914 #
2. actionfromafar ◴[26 Sep 25 18:35 UTC] No.45389615[source]▶
It’s the organized elites, true, but they aren’t a monolithic block either. In a proportional system they also must spread their influence on many parties. This is a good thing. With a single party there is a greater risk of a cordyceps infection taking over, see Republicans.
replies(1): >>45390241 #
3. nostrademons ◴[26 Sep 25 19:39 UTC] No.45390241[source]▶
IMHO the simple change that would have the biggest effect on the American political system would be to require Congresspeople to live full-time in their districts and conduct all official business over videoconference and e-mail. Lots of behavioral science has shown that the biggest generator of trust and allegiance is physical proximity and face-to-face interactions. Make all reps have their face to face interactions with their constituents and maybe they will actually start representing their constituents. It also makes lobbying a lot less economical (instead of hiring one lobbyist that can have lunch with 435 representatives, you would need 435 lobbyists, or at least 435 plane trips) and gerrymandering a bit less practical (there's a decent chance the rep would no longer live in the district and be forced to give up their seat).

That and ensuring a bidirectional feedback mechanism between the executive and legislative branch, so that laws that aren't enforced by an administration fall off the books, and presidents that don't enforce the laws lose their job. Right now, the legal corpus of the U.S. is a constantly-accreting body, which means that no matter what the President wants to do, they can find some law somewhere to justify it, and then anything they don't want to do, they just say "We don't have the resources to enforce this". This gives the President all the power. They should be a servant to the law, not its arbiter.

replies(1): >>45391343 #
4. actionfromafar ◴[26 Sep 25 21:46 UTC] No.45391343{3}[source]▶
With a Supreme Court like this one, what’s on the books don’t matter. They’ll find the interpretation.
5. jacquesm ◴[28 Sep 25 15:09 UTC] No.45404914[source]▶
They are influenced by money.