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

451–460 of 809 posts

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#451

Post by iamnothere »

JetSetIlly wrote: post #436
HankStallone wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not so much the money but rather being forced to do business with a company I do not want to do business with. If this were an optional activity, like driving a car and being forced to do business with an insurance company, that's one thing. But this will be a forced commercial interaction simply to be employed in the UK. That's a very novel abuse of power.

This is the crazy part to me. I want nothing to do with the iPhone/Android duopoly and I do not participate in it, at the cost of some personal convenience from time to time. If my own country were to implement this I’d honestly just tell them to stick me in jail. I can be a test case, why not? You have to draw the line somewhere.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#452

Post by arjie »

amaccuish wrote: post #195
jjgreen wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please give me your real name "celticninja", your phone number, your address, your NI number -- oh, and you'll need to install this app on your phone which I promise will never be used to monitor your location, purchases, friends. Then I'll explain.

Reductio ad absurdum.

Interesting. We could turn it into a logical argument just so we can see if this is the case. The course of the argument is:

> Could you explain what is so distasteful about ID cards?"

which is roughly how humans say "ID cards are okay" (P0)

> I mean if you have a passport then you already have an 'ID card', but I certainly don't want to take that out with me to prove my age.

which is roughly how humans say "We already collect information that would be on an ID card and store it against a passport" (P1) provided only for completeness because it is not used later

> "Could you please give me your real name "celticninja", your phone number, your address, your NI number -- oh, and you'll need to install this app on your phone which I promise will never be used to monitor your location, purchases, friends. Then I'll explain."

which is roughly how humans say "If (ID cards are okay) (P0 again) then (there should be no problem sharing that information with me, a stranger) (P2). But (there should be no problem sharing the information with me, a stranger) (P2 again) - is absurd"

Therefore, if all of these were logical, then indeed this is a valid proof that ID cards are not okay by reductio ad absurdum, a valid proof technique.

I suppose the gap in the argument is in the logical statement P0 => P2. If some chain of argument could provide P0 => P2 then this would indeed be a valid proof of the falsehood of P0 by reductio ad absurdum to P2 an absurd conclusion. Of course I wrote it out to illustrate, but it was obvious it was reductio ad absurdum.

It just strikes me as curious that someone would point that out. A bit like saying "syllogism" when someone makes a one-step logical conclusion, which is not something that humans usually post on web forums. Then again, if you say "Knowledge is power" someone will inevitably say "France is bacon" ;) so there's a bit of an ability to prompt things out of human beings that only has phatic purpose. Perhaps Latin, in particular, draws this out of someone but I'd think it odd if people went around saying "quod erat demonstrandum" in replies to someone who proved something.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#453

Post by array_key_first »

lxgr wrote: post #431
jjgreen wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please give me your real name "celticninja", your phone number, your address, your NI number -- oh, and you'll need to install this app on your phone which I promise will never be used to monitor your location, purchases, friends. Then I'll explain.

What does any of that have to do with an ID card ? Many countries have had ID cards for decades, yet don't have any digital ID system whatsoever.

Nothing but I thought we were talking about digital id.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#454

Post by array_key_first »

ruszki wrote: post #389
pjc50 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet. This slope looks very slippery in the year of the Online Safety Act.

With your logic, everything can be used, or change to be used in a bad way, so nothing should be changed. There is never a guarantee. Seriously, is there anything which cannot be changed to be shit, in the best case to be a worthless money pit? Edit: btw this proposal already has something which can be criticised: ID on mobile phones… so probably they’d lock everybody into a duopoly.

Yes, let's build the nuke and then put it in the center of London with a big red button. But don't worry, nobody will push the button.

Or, proposal B: don't build the nuke.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#455

Post by BeefySwain »

asah wrote: post #412
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.

Do you mean gait recognition?

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#456

Post by baggachipz »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #262
pera wrote: post #239

I am quite confused by this point: > A new digital ID scheme will help combat illegal working If you are an immigrant you already have to prove your right to work with a share code: https://www.gov.uk/prove-right-to-work/get-a-share-code-onli... And if you claim to be a citizen you must show a passport or birth certificate: https://www.gov.uk/prove-right-to-work So how exactly will this new digital ID help "stop thos…

You are correct and this won't help. The government is using deceit and dishonesty to push this proposal but I think people can see through it. That should really raise a red flag.

Just like people saw through Brexit, eh? Sorry, I say this from Trumpistan.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#457

Post by Edmond »

This doesn't have to be scary, you can pair this with cryptographic certificates to get rigorous privacy:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44723418

You use the ID to create an IRL identify anchor certificate, then use other certificates with varying privacy profiles that are then cryptographically linked to your identity but in a privacy preserving manner.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#458

Post by nostrademons »

aftergibson wrote: post #189

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. - Encry…

I wonder if zkSTARKS could help here. Prove that the validity of a statement (like "I am a citizen that is authorized to receive benefits") without revealing your precise identity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interactive_zero-knowledge...

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#459

Post by qazwsxedchac »

aftergibson wrote: post #189

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. - Encry…

The ID cards as realized in many other countries are comparatively benign, because they are a physical credential in the possession of the person concerned. The government cannot stop this credential from being used except by physically confiscating it or by waiting (years) for it to expire. Distributed storage in action.

The UK's proposal makes the "digital ID" a pointer to an entry in a centralized database. This database is the definitive record of what you are allowed to do or not do (like reside and work). Which can be changed or deleted at the stroke of a key, through human error or malice. Then what?

When (not if) the database becomes an attribute store across a wider scope, the implications are scary. The "digital ID" as set out today can't work for its ostensible purpose. Therefore its actual purpose isn't being declared. Not hard to connect the dots.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#460

Post by array_key_first »

basisword wrote: post #444
prmph wrote: post #437

I don't know what western countries are thinking. The concept of an isolated nation state is fast approaching obsolescence. Very soon, it will be clear that it is meaningless to put strong restrictions on the free movement of people. And history shows that an emphasis on keeping people out is a precursor to the decline of an empire. One thing I never understand: if people want to come to your country, that is a vote…

There are many legal routes to immigration and seeking asylum. People choose to move illegally because they won’t succeed on the legal routes and know that once they’re in the country the chance of them being deported is pretty low.

The legal routes are also often strenuous, far too long lived, overly strict, and obtuse.

If you barely speak the language, it's not easy. Unfortunately many countries have made immigration so hard, in an effort to combat it, that they've done the opposite - people immigrate illegally because it has a higher success rate than doing it legally.

If I apply for X, Y, and Z and I'm denied, I'm fucked. But if I just move... And then figure it out later... That might work better.

And that's how we got into this mess. A lot of this anti-immigration legislation actually increases the incentives for illegal immigration.

Post reply on HN