Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

This is a plan so we shall see what happens...

This is widely unpopular because the idea of ID cards is unpopular in general in the UK and the people also clearly understand that the argument that this would combat illegal immigration is total rubbish. Even the comments on The Guardian's website are overwhelmingly negative, which should really tell the government something.

The proposal is also drastic because it would be de facto mandatory for all residents. It's hilarious and pathetic to see the government argue that it wouldn't be mandatory, just only needed to get a job (which probably means also mandatory to rent and to study)...

An unpopular government trying to out-do itself.

Id cards are not unpopular with the general public. That's just what the daily mail wants you to think.

https://bsky.app/profile/samfr.bsky.social/post/3lzq2w3ovgk2...

This is HN, it is unsurprising that you will find complaints of people who think governments are icky. You know, the usual libertarian bullshit.

I lived in countries that have mandatory unique IDs, and countries that don't. Typically the countries that do not are more a pain in the ass to deal with, because institutions will proxy to the next best thing in the absense of an actual ID, typically documents that are not mandatory and not supposed to be used as ID, but end up being used like that anyway.

There's three separate questions:

- is it a good idea to tie various public records together under a unique ID

- is it a good idea to issue voluntary ID for those situations where people need to prove it

and the big, third one:

- where is this going to be made mandatory and under what circumstances will it be used against people?

> - is it a good idea to tie various public records together under a unique ID

Generally, yes. It simplifies dealing with government bureaucracy. Proving your identity is generally something you will have to do anyway, this is will just remove a bunch of hoops you have to go through.

> - is it a good idea to issue voluntary ID for those situations where people need to prove it

One of the countries I lived in had a system similar to this one. It worked fine - typically you only needed this ID when opening a bank account or registered for work. Originally it was a tax registration ID (which is why it was related to banking and working), but it was secure enough that it was later repurposed as the actual unique ID. Nowadays I think they issue one to every registered person (e.g. newborns).

> - where is this going to be made mandatory and under what circumstances will it be used against people?

We are talking about the government here, who has the monopoly of force. If you live in an authoritarian country where the government fucks over citizens, they will do it to you irrespective of you having a mandatory ID or not.

My actual main concern is the level of access private corporations have to the records tied to this unique ID. I am highly suspicious of corporations (e.g.: banks, healthcare providers, etc).

> Generally, yes. It simplifies dealing with government bureaucracy. Proving your identity is generally something you will have to do anyway, this is will just remove a bunch of hoops you have to go through.

This community, more than most, should understand in its bones that security and convenience are the ends of a see-saw. Convenience is five-character passwords, security is 2FA. Convenience is contactless payments, security is cash. Etc etc.

When you argue from convenience, I find it almost axiomatic that my security is going to take a beating.

Convenience and security are not opposite to one another, they are orthogonal. Inconvenient means to prove your identity may be terribly insecure, and still be inconvenient.