←back to thread

525 points alex77456 | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
aftergibson ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
dannyobrien ◴[] No.45391280[source]
So the Netherlands may not be the best example to use as a positive example here.

Notoriously, the national identity system was used during World War II as a system for discovering and eliminating the Jewish community[1]. The lessons learned from that are a frequent topic of discussion in civil liberties groups, and the Dutch experience is often cited, both global conversations and within the Netherlands -- e.g. On Liberation Day 2015, Bits of Freedom held its annual Godwin Lecture on the risks of prioritising ID efficiency over civil liberties[2].

It may be that special protections were coded into the current system to prevent this from happening again, I don't know the details.

Certainly, the reputation for how obligatory papers have been (mis)used in mainland Europe since Napoleonic times have fed into the anglo world's suspicion around introducing similar regulations[3]. There are several recurring memes around how compulsory documents are a sign of an authoritarian environment.

[1] - https://jck.nl/en/agenda/identity-cards-and-forgeries

[2] - https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/2015/04/30/during-world-war-ii-...

[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Valjean

replies(3): >>45391838 #>>45391981 #>>45393644 #
1. Aeolun ◴[] No.45391838[source]
I don’t think the current ID structure has any field for religious or racial history. It’s simply a unique number assigned to a person at birth.
replies(1): >>45392892 #
2. JetSetIlly ◴[] No.45392892[source]
The census form in the UK requires disclosure of religion and ethnicity. It would be relatively easy to merge census data with ID.

I might trust this government not to do that, but I don't trust a future government (because I don't know who that will be).

replies(1): >>45394603 #
3. heavenlyblue ◴[] No.45394603[source]
how would the existence of this card make it easier to pursue you if you're let's say, Jewish? Doesn't passport/driving license already have thisv
replies(1): >>45395286 #
4. JetSetIlly ◴[] No.45395286{3}[source]
Maybe it doesn't make it any easier but your question does remind us that cataloguing and categorising people can be dangerous. I accept that there are good reasons that the state could use this information, but we should also be alert to possible abuses.

Without looking, I honestly don't know if the passport and driving licence lists this information. But the census certainly does.

replies(1): >>45405168 #
5. heavenlyblue ◴[] No.45405168{4}[source]
I mean the issue is that British people are so uptight about the government id card when a) oyster/credit card allows somebody to track all of their movement b) there's plenty of information collection that combined can be used against you c) driving license is de facto gov id at the moment. The ship had sailed, you are fighting against the wrong thing and that's why this battle will be lost.