As well as the Estonia eID system works (aside from that time it got hacked[0] and that other time they leaked all the photos[1]) and how well a digital (non-government) system works in Scandinavia… I have to say…
As a Dual British/Swedish Citizen, I really do not trust the UK government. They have proven over and over and over, that at every opportunity presented they will increase their own authority. I don’t believe I have personally witnessed any other advanced economy that so ardently marches towards authoritarianism.
So, no matter if it’s a good idea or not. I can’t in good faith advise the UK having more powers. Unfortunately the UK government themselves can sort of just grant themselves more power. So…
Having a vulnerability is very different to getting hacked though. To date, there hasn't been a single breach of Estonia's ID system itself as far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong? And that's saying something given the adversary is Russia. Reading through your link, the leaked pictures incident was a separate external service that's not tied to the ID system itself.
The thing is, to me, the powers of the government to require more identification for different things is orthogonal to the idea of digital ID. We already have to identify ourselves in a variety of circumstances (e.g. mortgages, bank accounts, voting, using "adult" websites etc), and the gov. can get the information from various third parties on demand already.
Implementing those requirements didn't depend on there being a digital ID system. Instead we have a hodge podge of bad requirements (like "wet" signatures on specific documents, using of non-UK based private providers etc).
Implementing a digital ID system could reduce inequalities (for example, people who don't have passports and driver's licenses have more difficulties in some circumstances) and also reduce dependencies on non-UK orgs who may not do that well with privacy.
That's not to say there aren't risks of course, but other European countries seem to have managed to implement these systems without becoming totalitarian police states :)
TBH the mobile duopoly isn't a problem specific to the UK gov, and plenty of the systems already in use which have a mobile component already have that dependency, so I don't think it really gets any worse if you had a digital ID.
Indeed if done with physical smart card + reader, it would reduce the requirement for mobile devices, allowing for people unhappy with their presence to avoid them :)
The Swedish non-government system (BankID) doesn't work well for me. My Swedish identity must not be dependent on the permission of a US company nor the US government, while BankID requires both.
So far my BankID boycott is over a year old, and my resolve grows as I read more of the news.
Ask your bank for a pin machine, you can get a chip and pin machine to solve BankID challenges.
The machine itself is likely manufactured in China, but it’s of no consequence. You wouldn’t be able to communicate with me if you didn’t use chinese products at all.
I once had my bank close my account because of a mistake they made (I can provide the background but it’s just a facepalming story). That meant my Bank ID was closed down, too.
I asked for an appointment with the bank to resolve it but was told I can only get an appointment with Bank ID.
It was outrageous. Obviously none of the other services worked either. Luckily I still had a British and a German credit card that I used for payments (since I lived in both those countries before). In the end I opened an account with another bank and moved on. Although I did try, furiously, for two weeks to get my old bank to admit their mistake and rectify it. No chance. If they had admitted it it would’ve meant they would have broken financial regulation, and obviously you don’t admit to that if you don’t have to.
Bank ID is great when it works and brutal when it doesn’t.
I actually don’t have a better proposal for a system since it works quite well in most cases, but just wanted to share my bad experience on it too.
No, English people still somehow tie their identity to the UK Government somehow.
Scotland will not be granted another independence vote for at least 15 years, despite the last one being build upon a house of lies and nobody knows anything about what the Welsh think.
I do think we’re witnessing the collapse of the UK, but more like a Roman Empire collapse - as in it’s happening over decades. Dying with a whimper, not a bang.
That already happened: James VI of Scotland inherited the English (and Irish) throne. There's a pedantic sense in which the current English king is actually the Scottish king, not the other way around (although stronger pedantry would say the Hanoverian succession is sufficient to prove that whole line of reasoning a load of tosh). What would restoring the Scottish monarchy mean to you?
What would restoring the Scottish monarchy mean to you?
Fully reclaim Scotland's historical sovereignty, create a clear and distinct break with the rest of the United Kingdom and breaking English narratives.
My first act as king would be to build hundreds of underground nuclear and geothermal power plants, sever all connections to England, build massive data-centers and under ground cities to wait out WWIII. I would also build a giant rollar coaster than spans the entire country, under ground with trippy visual effects and stops at numerous malls, coffee shops and other amusement destinations. I would run under ground fiber to every location on earth as well as high speed transport tubes, 90% of which would arrive at secret locations around the world. One never knows where the Scots will appear. I would fund all of this pissing away the gold and gems using the wealth of the English crown. Every home would have free 400gb/s IPv6 internet. Oh and I would purchase and relocate every private military contractor from the USA into Scotland. My military would be entirely private and for-profit. We would fund our operations by siphoning processed fuel, oil and other resouces from other nations pipes via our underground tunnels. Immigration policy will be an app that only citizens of Scotland may utilize to swipe left or right on applicants. The app may also be used to eject existing people. That's Q1. Q2 through Q4 would be extending the borders of the nation to include the entire land mass under every ocean and growing the population to 10 billion from weekend orgies.
> They have proven over and over and over, that at every opportunity presented they will increase their own authority. I don’t believe I have personally witnessed any other advanced economy that so ardently marches towards authoritarianism.
This has been a slow 111 year project. See the opening of A. J. P. Taylor's English History 1914–1945:
> Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so.
> All this was changed by the impact of the Great War. The mass of the people became, for the first time, active citizens. Their lives were shaped by orders from above; they were required to serve the state instead of pursuing exclusively their own affairs. Five million men entered the armed forces, many of them (though a minority) under compulsion. The Englishman’s food was limited, and its quality changed, by government order. His freedom of movement was restricted; his conditions of work prescribed. Some industries were reduced or closed, others artificially fostered. The publication of news was fettered. Street lights were dimmed. The sacred freedom of drinking was tampered with: licensed hours were cut down, and the beer watered by order. The very time on the clocks was changed. From 1916 onwards, every Englishman got up an hour earlier in summer than he would otherwise have done, thanks to an act of parliament. The state established a hold over its citizens which, though relaxed in peacetime, was never to be removed and which the second World War was again to increase. The history of the English state and of the English people merged for the first time.
We need to clearly define some stuff around Digital ID, since people seem to be using the term for distinctly different things.
There's (1) eGovernment platforms, where you can handle government-related business online using a login. There's (2) Digital ID cards, where you can use your phone in place of a physical ID or drivers license in real life. And then there's (3) full EU-proposed-style Digital ID, where government wants to act as a SSO provider for private online services, like social media.
Yet someone can be rightfully criticizing (3), as it would pose a major risk to online privacy, and someone else barges in with "here in [place] we have a great eGovernment platform which is very useful for filing your taxes online, I don't see why you'd oppose that". Not specifically in this thread, it's been noticeable over almost all Digital ID-related discussions in the past. Please be considerate of that.
This appears to be about (2), with the catch of it being made mandatory for anyone who wants to be employed in the UK.
The labour government can not be challenged in any serious way until the next election in 4 years. Petitions don't really do anything, they will just say "no" to what the people ask for and move on with their agenda.
It is disheartening to see this country follow the same path the US took, it seems as our politics become more polarised, the team sports aspect means we start seeing parties push through agendas while putting their fingers in their ears. It's so easy for a politician to point score by shooting down dissent as "the other side thinks this is bad, so it means it's good".
The stated goal of Digital ID is to reduce illegal migrants from working, getting housing and using services. The obvious issue here is that they don't use traditional means to do this today, and it won't change with the introduction of this. They already hide from the state.
If we had decent opposition they'd try to kill this by mandating it HAD to be used for voting, which Labour will absolutely not want.
I would say 95% of my friend group were not born in this country, and the changes this government are making are pushing them to want to leave, and they are here legally, they have high paying jobs and skills and they feel unwanted.
For the first time in my life it seems like it makes sense to join them.
The most cynical part is that Labour spent years accusing the Tories of wanting to do this, then introduced it themselves, dressed up as a way to cut migration. And now, if you oppose the ID, they smear you as being pro–illegal immigration.
This is some very impressive politicking and exactly why many people don't trust the mainstream political parties.
Regarding tackling illegal immigration the issue is that there are already ample and sufficients checks mandated by law so this would not change anything. Indeed the main issue is that there are dodgy employers and landlords who simply flunk the law and would oviously continue to do so and ignore Digital IDs all the same.
Digital IDs would also be de facto mandatory for the majority of adult residents based on what they would be required for despite the government very clumsily saying otherwise.
The government is simply being dishonest here so that should arouse suspicion...
The really rough part is that while the Democratic Party in the US is a weak slightly-left-of-center party, the Labour Party in the UK is basically a right-of-center party with decreasing amounts of daylight between them and the Tories.
In particular, there is no major political party in the UK that supports trans rights, which is devastating to that community there.
(On the plus side, so far as I can tell, with the Reform party to absorb the true fascists, there are fewer of them in the two major parties in the UK. ...With the downside being that Reform is doing distressingly well these days.)
It's becoming increasingly confusing to me who any of the parties actually represent.
The more left leaning people I know are foaming at the mouth over how Labour have operated since being elected, all moderates (outside London) I know tend to lean Conservative (though that party seems to be AWOL since the election) and the only party I hear that is gaining any popularity is Reform, and they are doing so at an alarming pace.
4 years is a long time, but it seems inevitable its a two horse race between Reform (given polls I have to presume not everyone who votes for them is a racist twit) and Labour, and Labour seem hell bent on alienating any one who isn't centre-right, and they have to contend with Reform for those votes. Maybe it's politicking to a degree I don't understand, but it seems like a very odd strategy.
For those outside the UK look at this chart to see how fast Reform are rising:
After seeing NUMEROUS video of UK police showing up at doorsteps like the gestapo, arresting or citing or intimidating people who are simply practicing free speech, I don’t think anyone should support the government with a pathway to de-anonymize the web. Even if you support the current government, such powers will be used against you at some point.
If you're looking for evidence of the UK gov's authoritarian tendencies, you don't need to go looking at videos on Youtube, just look at the number of arrests of peaceful protestors who were given charges under terrorism legislation for holding up banners or wearing T-Shirts mentioning "Palestine Action" (ref https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/25/fate-of-hund...).
Or indeed in one notable case the person who was arrested for a T-Shirt about "Plasticine action"
That’s because Palestine Action are a proscribed group.
Whether or not the proscription was correct is irrelevant, the current law means that you commit the same offence showing support for IS or the Terrorgram Collective.
The police can’t simply ignore one proscribed group over another as that leads to all manner of weird and wacky outcomes.
The legislation which causes anyone expressing support of a proscribed group is the authoritarian thing I'm talking about. The Terrorism Act 2000 as implemented is the problem.
Having a law that means merely expressing support of a group, leads to criminal charges is not something I think should be in place in any country that pretends to support freedom of speech.
They're supporting a specific group that went into a military base and damaged military equipment (that was irrelevant to palestine/israel), those people going out with those T-Shirts know exactly why the group was proscribed and are seeking to be arrested, why are we shocked they got arrested, they wanted it.
Put it this way, the UK managed to get through the troubles, which had a lot of events far more serious than what Palestine action have done, without needing this level of policing of free speech.
The point I was making is that successive UK gov's are tending towards authoritarianism, the current one included.
The last one that made the rounds here ended up being carefully cut to give a specific impression (and the initial presented commentary straight up lies), and when the "full story" came out it turned out to be a lot less "simply practicing free speech" than implied.
But retractions never get the same visibility, and it's already made the impression they wanted the post to make.
It is a criminal offense in the UK to use insulting words in public, or to send any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive (whether any one does or not is irreverent).
The Online Safety Act and Hate Crime Provision have extended these somewhat into the realms of 1984. But the police do tend to use them sparingly.
There's no value in making insults for the sake of being insulting protected speech, but in the UK if you're making ECHR Article 10 protected speech that someone happens to find insulting or offensive then that's not a crime. It's unhelpful to permit insults as free speech to prevent some hypothetical future abuse, since all modern dictatorships pay lip service to free speech and instead lock up their political opponents for embezzlement or mortgage fraud or whatever.
> It is a criminal offense in the UK to use insulting words in public, or to send any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive (whether any one does or not is irreverent).
Go watch the videos and look up what was said. Most of them are clearly normal non violent free speech, but just politically not aligned to the current government’s platform. I’m not saying all are just doing free speech but am confident about most.
The thing that frustrates me the most about digital ID cards is not themselves on merit but rather modern Labour's political abilities.
Like, the UK economy is stagnant, there is a cost-of-living crisis, and Labour needs to present the public with an alternative to Farage. And the answer is... digital ID cards?
> The Government has no plans to stop the introduction of Digital ID cards, and is working closely with companies to implement it as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.
This appears to be backfiring spectacularly.
It is a shame in many ways because a decent digital ID system would be very beneficial.
The problem is the approach is completely wrong.
There are already 10+ competing ID system which are now largely digital.
A solution on how to bring all that together done well could make things significantly more secure by reducing the attack surface and make it much more reliable.
Instead it looks like they are going for 1 more competing system, the implementation of which will be steered by politics and ideology rather than technology and technical requirements.
Signed, but I guess it is gonna be one of those where they keep asking until they get the answer they want.
Where is the counter bill to block all future attempts of such privacy invading bills. Can the public draft new legislation like that? If so please ensures it blocks any dependency on smart phone ownership or other bigtech services.
Unlike the ludicrous US system with a "written constitution" that basically means a handful of unelected people get to overide all laws and say they're just "interpreting" as they ignore the plain words, the clear intent or any other obstacle to their Imperial Decree, the Parliament is literally Sovereign.
So, if Parliament passes a Law tomorrow, miraculously by unanimous consent saying "The UK shall never have Digital ID" and insisting it denies itself any ability to make a law introducing such a thing - at any point it can also, despite that, pass law making a Digital ID by the narrowest majority, for example the day after.
In fact not so very long ago this exact farce played out. The Liberal Democrats were in a situation where they could either join a coalition with the larger Conservative party and form a government or they could say "No" and likely the populace has to do another election. Popular understanding was that British people hate elections, and so if you insist on another one they will punish you, the Lib Dems did not want that. But, they were concerned that the Tories would betray them (predictably)
So hence the 2011 "Fixed Term Parliaments Act". But although the Act says you can't just end parliament without a term ending, obviously Parliament can just pass a new law saying nah, changed our mind, which is what the 2019 "Early Parliamentary General Election Act" does and then the 2022 "Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act" undid the whole pointless mess.
Parliamentary sovereignty might be able to take on limits via some sort of tradition over a long period. For example perhaps if Parliament had stuck with that Fixed Term rule for a few hundred years - it'd settle as "Just how it is" and there'd be a serious argument that you can't just pass a law saying just this once as an exception we'll hold elections early. But "It was a few years ago" clearly doesn't cut it and that's what you would need for such a "counter bill".
The best you can hope for is a pledge by politicians, which is worth slightly less than a piece of paper you wrote it on.
It almost feels predestined for this to not solve the problems at hand, overrun on costs and timelines (furthering the first point), in no way streamline existing processes or cut costs, leave behind parts of society, and present security vulnerabilities that can be capitalised on through either social engineering or malware (also furthering the first point, only now citizens will be accused of tax fraud)
I hate to be pessimistic and there are elements of the idea I like, but when reflecting on the issues at hand this feels like popping the toaster because you smell burnt toast, but the rest of the house is on fire
Indeed. It'll be a gravy train for one of the usual big consulting companies. Billions of much needed cash will be wasted and nothing of any value will be achieved.
This ID system is touted as somehow stopping illegal boat crossings (the current political hot topic in the UK) because it will apparently somehow stop illegal work. This is obvious nonsense. Employers are already supposed to do ID checks and face heavy fines for employing illegal workers. Illegal employers obviously don't bother with such checks and pay cash in hand. They will continue not to bother doing any such checks, with or without ID cards.
A great deal of illegal work is actually caused by arm's-length employers such as food delivery apps and other similar platforms. These companies already do fairly robust ID checks. What happens though is people rent out their accounts (often for surprisingly small amounts of money) with the ID check already passed to illegals who actually do the work. The problem is nothing to do with ID checks, it's the fact that the employer never sees the employee in person and doesn't verify on a day-to-day basis who is actually completing the work.
Have any of those petitions ever changed anything? I might as well shout 'I don’t want a digital ID' down the toilet, it’d be just as effective. And that’s coming from someone who’s against digital IDs.
France, Germany, Sweden, Estonia and India already have government id. However, this being hackernews there will never be a link to a well researched article on the pros and cons of introducing id cards (digital or otherwise), only conspiracy theories and confident declarations that id cards are a surefire symbol of authoritarian states. I don't know what I think, I lack sufficient knowledge to have an opinion. But I still know approximately 10,000x more about UK politics, economics and immigration than 99% of the people commenting here.
As well as the Estonia eID system works (aside from that time it got hacked[0] and that other time they leaked all the photos[1]) and how well a digital (non-government) system works in Scandinavia… I have to say…
As a Dual British/Swedish Citizen, I really do not trust the UK government. They have proven over and over and over, that at every opportunity presented they will increase their own authority. I don’t believe I have personally witnessed any other advanced economy that so ardently marches towards authoritarianism.
So, no matter if it’s a good idea or not. I can’t in good faith advise the UK having more powers. Unfortunately the UK government themselves can sort of just grant themselves more power. So…
[0]: https://e-estonia.com/card-security-risk/
[1]: https://therecord.media/estonia-says-a-hacker-downloaded-286...
Having a vulnerability is very different to getting hacked though. To date, there hasn't been a single breach of Estonia's ID system itself as far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong? And that's saying something given the adversary is Russia. Reading through your link, the leaked pictures incident was a separate external service that's not tied to the ID system itself.
The thing is, to me, the powers of the government to require more identification for different things is orthogonal to the idea of digital ID. We already have to identify ourselves in a variety of circumstances (e.g. mortgages, bank accounts, voting, using "adult" websites etc), and the gov. can get the information from various third parties on demand already.
Implementing those requirements didn't depend on there being a digital ID system. Instead we have a hodge podge of bad requirements (like "wet" signatures on specific documents, using of non-UK based private providers etc).
Implementing a digital ID system could reduce inequalities (for example, people who don't have passports and driver's licenses have more difficulties in some circumstances) and also reduce dependencies on non-UK orgs who may not do that well with privacy.
That's not to say there aren't risks of course, but other European countries seem to have managed to implement these systems without becoming totalitarian police states :)
Reduce dependencies on non-UK orgs by increasing dependencies on Google and Apple ... which are ... hold on a minute...
TBH the mobile duopoly isn't a problem specific to the UK gov, and plenty of the systems already in use which have a mobile component already have that dependency, so I don't think it really gets any worse if you had a digital ID.
Indeed if done with physical smart card + reader, it would reduce the requirement for mobile devices, allowing for people unhappy with their presence to avoid them :)
The Swedish non-government system (BankID) doesn't work well for me. My Swedish identity must not be dependent on the permission of a US company nor the US government, while BankID requires both.
So far my BankID boycott is over a year old, and my resolve grows as I read more of the news.
Ask your bank for a pin machine, you can get a chip and pin machine to solve BankID challenges.
The machine itself is likely manufactured in China, but it’s of no consequence. You wouldn’t be able to communicate with me if you didn’t use chinese products at all.
I once had my bank close my account because of a mistake they made (I can provide the background but it’s just a facepalming story). That meant my Bank ID was closed down, too.
I asked for an appointment with the bank to resolve it but was told I can only get an appointment with Bank ID.
It was outrageous. Obviously none of the other services worked either. Luckily I still had a British and a German credit card that I used for payments (since I lived in both those countries before). In the end I opened an account with another bank and moved on. Although I did try, furiously, for two weeks to get my old bank to admit their mistake and rectify it. No chance. If they had admitted it it would’ve meant they would have broken financial regulation, and obviously you don’t admit to that if you don’t have to.
Bank ID is great when it works and brutal when it doesn’t.
I actually don’t have a better proposal for a system since it works quite well in most cases, but just wanted to share my bad experience on it too.
Many of the former colonies of the UK have chosen to secede from the UK.
Is there any chance England might too?
No, English people still somehow tie their identity to the UK Government somehow.
Scotland will not be granted another independence vote for at least 15 years, despite the last one being build upon a house of lies and nobody knows anything about what the Welsh think.
I do think we’re witnessing the collapse of the UK, but more like a Roman Empire collapse - as in it’s happening over decades. Dying with a whimper, not a bang.
Northern Ireland also exists!
Sorry, just like every politician and UK company: I forgot about Northern Ireland :(m
Scotland needs to reinstate their king and conquer England to right the wrongs.
But how do we decide on which one of the proclaimers it would be?
Leith to London isn't that far away from 500 miles.
a walk-off. First to 1,000 miles
That already happened: James VI of Scotland inherited the English (and Irish) throne. There's a pedantic sense in which the current English king is actually the Scottish king, not the other way around (although stronger pedantry would say the Hanoverian succession is sufficient to prove that whole line of reasoning a load of tosh). What would restoring the Scottish monarchy mean to you?
What would restoring the Scottish monarchy mean to you?
Fully reclaim Scotland's historical sovereignty, create a clear and distinct break with the rest of the United Kingdom and breaking English narratives.
My first act as king would be to build hundreds of underground nuclear and geothermal power plants, sever all connections to England, build massive data-centers and under ground cities to wait out WWIII. I would also build a giant rollar coaster than spans the entire country, under ground with trippy visual effects and stops at numerous malls, coffee shops and other amusement destinations. I would run under ground fiber to every location on earth as well as high speed transport tubes, 90% of which would arrive at secret locations around the world. One never knows where the Scots will appear. I would fund all of this pissing away the gold and gems using the wealth of the English crown. Every home would have free 400gb/s IPv6 internet. Oh and I would purchase and relocate every private military contractor from the USA into Scotland. My military would be entirely private and for-profit. We would fund our operations by siphoning processed fuel, oil and other resouces from other nations pipes via our underground tunnels. Immigration policy will be an app that only citizens of Scotland may utilize to swipe left or right on applicants. The app may also be used to eject existing people. That's Q1. Q2 through Q4 would be extending the borders of the nation to include the entire land mass under every ocean and growing the population to 10 billion from weekend orgies.
> They have proven over and over and over, that at every opportunity presented they will increase their own authority. I don’t believe I have personally witnessed any other advanced economy that so ardently marches towards authoritarianism.
This has been a slow 111 year project. See the opening of A. J. P. Taylor's English History 1914–1945:
> Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so.
> All this was changed by the impact of the Great War. The mass of the people became, for the first time, active citizens. Their lives were shaped by orders from above; they were required to serve the state instead of pursuing exclusively their own affairs. Five million men entered the armed forces, many of them (though a minority) under compulsion. The Englishman’s food was limited, and its quality changed, by government order. His freedom of movement was restricted; his conditions of work prescribed. Some industries were reduced or closed, others artificially fostered. The publication of news was fettered. Street lights were dimmed. The sacred freedom of drinking was tampered with: licensed hours were cut down, and the beer watered by order. The very time on the clocks was changed. From 1916 onwards, every Englishman got up an hour earlier in summer than he would otherwise have done, thanks to an act of parliament. The state established a hold over its citizens which, though relaxed in peacetime, was never to be removed and which the second World War was again to increase. The history of the English state and of the English people merged for the first time.
We need to clearly define some stuff around Digital ID, since people seem to be using the term for distinctly different things.
There's (1) eGovernment platforms, where you can handle government-related business online using a login. There's (2) Digital ID cards, where you can use your phone in place of a physical ID or drivers license in real life. And then there's (3) full EU-proposed-style Digital ID, where government wants to act as a SSO provider for private online services, like social media.
Yet someone can be rightfully criticizing (3), as it would pose a major risk to online privacy, and someone else barges in with "here in [place] we have a great eGovernment platform which is very useful for filing your taxes online, I don't see why you'd oppose that". Not specifically in this thread, it's been noticeable over almost all Digital ID-related discussions in the past. Please be considerate of that.
This appears to be about (2), with the catch of it being made mandatory for anyone who wants to be employed in the UK.
The labour government can not be challenged in any serious way until the next election in 4 years. Petitions don't really do anything, they will just say "no" to what the people ask for and move on with their agenda.
It is disheartening to see this country follow the same path the US took, it seems as our politics become more polarised, the team sports aspect means we start seeing parties push through agendas while putting their fingers in their ears. It's so easy for a politician to point score by shooting down dissent as "the other side thinks this is bad, so it means it's good".
The stated goal of Digital ID is to reduce illegal migrants from working, getting housing and using services. The obvious issue here is that they don't use traditional means to do this today, and it won't change with the introduction of this. They already hide from the state.
If we had decent opposition they'd try to kill this by mandating it HAD to be used for voting, which Labour will absolutely not want.
I would say 95% of my friend group were not born in this country, and the changes this government are making are pushing them to want to leave, and they are here legally, they have high paying jobs and skills and they feel unwanted.
For the first time in my life it seems like it makes sense to join them.
The most cynical part is that Labour spent years accusing the Tories of wanting to do this, then introduced it themselves, dressed up as a way to cut migration. And now, if you oppose the ID, they smear you as being pro–illegal immigration.
This is some very impressive politicking and exactly why many people don't trust the mainstream political parties.
Regarding tackling illegal immigration the issue is that there are already ample and sufficients checks mandated by law so this would not change anything. Indeed the main issue is that there are dodgy employers and landlords who simply flunk the law and would oviously continue to do so and ignore Digital IDs all the same.
Digital IDs would also be de facto mandatory for the majority of adult residents based on what they would be required for despite the government very clumsily saying otherwise.
The government is simply being dishonest here so that should arouse suspicion...
The really rough part is that while the Democratic Party in the US is a weak slightly-left-of-center party, the Labour Party in the UK is basically a right-of-center party with decreasing amounts of daylight between them and the Tories.
In particular, there is no major political party in the UK that supports trans rights, which is devastating to that community there.
(On the plus side, so far as I can tell, with the Reform party to absorb the true fascists, there are fewer of them in the two major parties in the UK. ...With the downside being that Reform is doing distressingly well these days.)
It's becoming increasingly confusing to me who any of the parties actually represent.
The more left leaning people I know are foaming at the mouth over how Labour have operated since being elected, all moderates (outside London) I know tend to lean Conservative (though that party seems to be AWOL since the election) and the only party I hear that is gaining any popularity is Reform, and they are doing so at an alarming pace.
4 years is a long time, but it seems inevitable its a two horse race between Reform (given polls I have to presume not everyone who votes for them is a racist twit) and Labour, and Labour seem hell bent on alienating any one who isn't centre-right, and they have to contend with Reform for those votes. Maybe it's politicking to a degree I don't understand, but it seems like a very odd strategy.
For those outside the UK look at this chart to see how fast Reform are rising:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_U...
Just today Switzerland said YES to E-ID
https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/votes/202509...
After seeing NUMEROUS video of UK police showing up at doorsteps like the gestapo, arresting or citing or intimidating people who are simply practicing free speech, I don’t think anyone should support the government with a pathway to de-anonymize the web. Even if you support the current government, such powers will be used against you at some point.
If you're looking for evidence of the UK gov's authoritarian tendencies, you don't need to go looking at videos on Youtube, just look at the number of arrests of peaceful protestors who were given charges under terrorism legislation for holding up banners or wearing T-Shirts mentioning "Palestine Action" (ref https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/25/fate-of-hund...).
Or indeed in one notable case the person who was arrested for a T-Shirt about "Plasticine action"
That’s because Palestine Action are a proscribed group.
Whether or not the proscription was correct is irrelevant, the current law means that you commit the same offence showing support for IS or the Terrorgram Collective.
The police can’t simply ignore one proscribed group over another as that leads to all manner of weird and wacky outcomes.
The legislation which causes anyone expressing support of a proscribed group is the authoritarian thing I'm talking about. The Terrorism Act 2000 as implemented is the problem.
Having a law that means merely expressing support of a group, leads to criminal charges is not something I think should be in place in any country that pretends to support freedom of speech.
But they're only a proscribed group because the cabinet decided it was politically convenient to proscribe them.
So a person who is worried about Starmer's authoritarian tendencies lay responsibility for the police action at the door of number 10.
They're supporting a specific group that went into a military base and damaged military equipment (that was irrelevant to palestine/israel), those people going out with those T-Shirts know exactly why the group was proscribed and are seeking to be arrested, why are we shocked they got arrested, they wanted it.
Put it this way, the UK managed to get through the troubles, which had a lot of events far more serious than what Palestine action have done, without needing this level of policing of free speech.
The point I was making is that successive UK gov's are tending towards authoritarianism, the current one included.
Miles, who made the Plasticine Action shirts, is a FoF and we've all bought these shirts. The PA proscription is laughable.
I wonder how much you're loading into "simply practicing free speech".
The last one that made the rounds here ended up being carefully cut to give a specific impression (and the initial presented commentary straight up lies), and when the "full story" came out it turned out to be a lot less "simply practicing free speech" than implied.
But retractions never get the same visibility, and it's already made the impression they wanted the post to make.
Not a great site but gives the gist:
https://www.newsweek.com/british-police-explain-video-office...
It is a criminal offense in the UK to use insulting words in public, or to send any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive (whether any one does or not is irreverent).
The Online Safety Act and Hate Crime Provision have extended these somewhat into the realms of 1984. But the police do tend to use them sparingly.
There's no value in making insults for the sake of being insulting protected speech, but in the UK if you're making ECHR Article 10 protected speech that someone happens to find insulting or offensive then that's not a crime. It's unhelpful to permit insults as free speech to prevent some hypothetical future abuse, since all modern dictatorships pay lip service to free speech and instead lock up their political opponents for embezzlement or mortgage fraud or whatever.
> It is a criminal offense in the UK to use insulting words in public, or to send any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive (whether any one does or not is irreverent).
This is categorically untrue.
Go watch the videos and look up what was said. Most of them are clearly normal non violent free speech, but just politically not aligned to the current government’s platform. I’m not saying all are just doing free speech but am confident about most.
Look, I didn't mean someone should actually burn down the building with the occupants still inside. It was satire!
The thing that frustrates me the most about digital ID cards is not themselves on merit but rather modern Labour's political abilities.
Like, the UK economy is stagnant, there is a cost-of-living crisis, and Labour needs to present the public with an alternative to Farage. And the answer is... digital ID cards?
Prediction:
> The Government has no plans to stop the introduction of Digital ID cards, and is working closely with companies to implement it as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903
I don't understand the problem. How is this different from all other identifiers, physical or digital, that most goverments already have?
This appears to be backfiring spectacularly. It is a shame in many ways because a decent digital ID system would be very beneficial. The problem is the approach is completely wrong. There are already 10+ competing ID system which are now largely digital. A solution on how to bring all that together done well could make things significantly more secure by reducing the attack surface and make it much more reliable.
Instead it looks like they are going for 1 more competing system, the implementation of which will be steered by politics and ideology rather than technology and technical requirements.
Signed, but I guess it is gonna be one of those where they keep asking until they get the answer they want.
Where is the counter bill to block all future attempts of such privacy invading bills. Can the public draft new legislation like that? If so please ensures it blocks any dependency on smart phone ownership or other bigtech services.
Unlike the ludicrous US system with a "written constitution" that basically means a handful of unelected people get to overide all laws and say they're just "interpreting" as they ignore the plain words, the clear intent or any other obstacle to their Imperial Decree, the Parliament is literally Sovereign.
So, if Parliament passes a Law tomorrow, miraculously by unanimous consent saying "The UK shall never have Digital ID" and insisting it denies itself any ability to make a law introducing such a thing - at any point it can also, despite that, pass law making a Digital ID by the narrowest majority, for example the day after.
In fact not so very long ago this exact farce played out. The Liberal Democrats were in a situation where they could either join a coalition with the larger Conservative party and form a government or they could say "No" and likely the populace has to do another election. Popular understanding was that British people hate elections, and so if you insist on another one they will punish you, the Lib Dems did not want that. But, they were concerned that the Tories would betray them (predictably)
So hence the 2011 "Fixed Term Parliaments Act". But although the Act says you can't just end parliament without a term ending, obviously Parliament can just pass a new law saying nah, changed our mind, which is what the 2019 "Early Parliamentary General Election Act" does and then the 2022 "Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act" undid the whole pointless mess.
Parliamentary sovereignty might be able to take on limits via some sort of tradition over a long period. For example perhaps if Parliament had stuck with that Fixed Term rule for a few hundred years - it'd settle as "Just how it is" and there'd be a serious argument that you can't just pass a law saying just this once as an exception we'll hold elections early. But "It was a few years ago" clearly doesn't cut it and that's what you would need for such a "counter bill".
The best you can hope for is a pledge by politicians, which is worth slightly less than a piece of paper you wrote it on.
It almost feels predestined for this to not solve the problems at hand, overrun on costs and timelines (furthering the first point), in no way streamline existing processes or cut costs, leave behind parts of society, and present security vulnerabilities that can be capitalised on through either social engineering or malware (also furthering the first point, only now citizens will be accused of tax fraud)
I hate to be pessimistic and there are elements of the idea I like, but when reflecting on the issues at hand this feels like popping the toaster because you smell burnt toast, but the rest of the house is on fire
Indeed. It'll be a gravy train for one of the usual big consulting companies. Billions of much needed cash will be wasted and nothing of any value will be achieved.
This ID system is touted as somehow stopping illegal boat crossings (the current political hot topic in the UK) because it will apparently somehow stop illegal work. This is obvious nonsense. Employers are already supposed to do ID checks and face heavy fines for employing illegal workers. Illegal employers obviously don't bother with such checks and pay cash in hand. They will continue not to bother doing any such checks, with or without ID cards.
A great deal of illegal work is actually caused by arm's-length employers such as food delivery apps and other similar platforms. These companies already do fairly robust ID checks. What happens though is people rent out their accounts (often for surprisingly small amounts of money) with the ID check already passed to illegals who actually do the work. The problem is nothing to do with ID checks, it's the fact that the employer never sees the employee in person and doesn't verify on a day-to-day basis who is actually completing the work.
Have any of those petitions ever changed anything? I might as well shout 'I don’t want a digital ID' down the toilet, it’d be just as effective. And that’s coming from someone who’s against digital IDs.
> Have any of those petitions ever changed anything?
What's the alternative? Not do anything and hope things change by themselves? Has that worked in the past? Is doing something than better nothing?
Signing an online petition isn't better than doing nothing and is arguably worse.
France, Germany, Sweden, Estonia and India already have government id. However, this being hackernews there will never be a link to a well researched article on the pros and cons of introducing id cards (digital or otherwise), only conspiracy theories and confident declarations that id cards are a surefire symbol of authoritarian states. I don't know what I think, I lack sufficient knowledge to have an opinion. But I still know approximately 10,000x more about UK politics, economics and immigration than 99% of the people commenting here.