Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 809 posts

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#411

Post by phatfish »

gargan wrote: post #387
jonex wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 achie…

It's the opposite of what you say. Proportional representation isn't accountable because you don't know what coalition you're voting for - coalitions are done in backrooms after the election. Winner takes all is more accountable because the coalitions are done before the election (aka political parties). Parties are made up of different factions and they're agreed before the election.

I guess you don't live in the UK, because winner takes all is far worse for backroom deals. The deals just end up being between factions within the same party!

Deals and bargaining all happen AFTER a party takes power and completely hidden until a government can't pass their own bills like the Labour attempt to reform welfare.

With proportional representation the deals are made in order to form a government, BEFORE it has power, and are between separate political parties.

Sure there may be agreements that are not all made public, but these are much harder to keep in the "backroom".

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#412

Post by asah »

a022311 wrote: post #402

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 rec…

??? 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.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#413

Post by HankStallone »

JetSetIlly wrote: post #406
gattr wrote: post #260

> Stored on mobile phones, the ID would contain details including a name, date of birth, residency status and crucially a photo - which would distinguish it from National Insurance numbers. Surely it will be possible to also store it on some government-issued, GCHQ-vetted digital device, and not rely on foreign companies (Google/Apple) and their locked-down mobile platforms?

This is the most alarming aspect of the proposal to me. I find it wild that the government will require me, by law, to buy an expensive electronic device I don't want or otherwise need, in order to be employed. It's absolutely amazing to me that the government is forcing me to spend money in this way.

My government requires me, by law, to send it tens of thousands of dollars every year, much of it to be spent on things I don't want or need, in order to stay out of prison.

Requiring me to spend another $100 or so on a phone seems like pretty small potatoes, compared to what they intend to use the device for. I'm not saying I'd like it, but it's a detail, not the main issue.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#415

Post by actionfromafar »

HPsquared wrote: post #407
ghusto wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#417

Post by foldr »

elcritch wrote: post #14
lvturner wrote: post #5

Having just paid a small fortune to renew my passport. I'm not super excited about this, especially as I live outside the UK. I also don't trust them not to make a complete hash of all this, removing all potential utility while simultaneously increasing the chances of my ID being stolen. sigh

As an American it seems to me that the UK government insists on finding a way to upset all sides on any given issue like illegal immigration. If anything it's the singular and unique skill of Whitehall.

Don't be misled by the reaction on HN. The general concept of a national ID card is not unpopular in the UK:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/support-for-th...

IMO this is a gimmick and probably won't have much effect either for good or bad. I would vote against it given the chance. But there aren't that many British people who feel especially strongly about this.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#418

Post by JetSetIlly »

tekno45 wrote: post #385

What info is on this ID that they don't already have access to? Not from the UK so i don't know how much more they're asking for

That's not really the issue people have with it.

The issue I have is that it provides a convenient way for people to hassle me for my identity. Being able to identify myself is not a problem I've ever had and I don't like the idea of being forced to buy a smartphone just to remain an employed citizen in the UK.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#419

Post by logicchains »

a022311 wrote: post #402

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 rec…

>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.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#420

Post by foldr »

MrToadMan wrote: post #132
rich_sasha wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The small boats crossing are a small fraction of immigration. Some Google number claims 37k people got in this way in 2024. With net migration hovering around 0.8-1m people per year, arrivals must be well above this number (surely some people are leaving, making the net number smaller). But even then, this is less than 5% of the legal immigration, and probably a lot less than that. I'm not saying it doesn't need addr…

Depends on if you are looking at this in terms of numbers of people or cost. The Home Office annual spend on processing asylum seekers has ballooned from just under £1 billion to near £5 billion in the space of 5 years, which is 1/3 of the estimated £14 billion raised from the unpopular National Insurance increase.

We keep getting told that these people are predominantly young men of working age.

If only someone could come up with a brilliant idea which might allow them to make a long-term contribution to the economy far in excess of the cost of processing their asylum applications...

Post reply on HN