Live data from Hacker News

Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

reuters.com

471–480 of 809 posts

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

IMHO the simple change that would have the biggest effect on the American political system would be to require Congresspeople to live full-time in their districts and conduct all official business over videoconference and e-mail. Lots of behavioral science has shown that the biggest generator of trust and allegiance is physical proximity and face-to-face interactions. Make all reps have their face to face interactions with their constituents and maybe they will actually start representing their constituents. It also makes lobbying a lot less economical (instead of hiring one lobbyist that can have lunch with 435 representatives, you would need 435 lobbyists, or at least 435 plane trips) and gerrymandering a bit less practical (there's a decent chance the rep would no longer live in the district and be forced to give up their seat).

That and ensuring a bidirectional feedback mechanism between the executive and legislative branch, so that laws that aren't enforced by an administration fall off the books, and presidents that don't enforce the laws lose their job. Right now, the legal corpus of the U.S. is a constantly-accreting body, which means that no matter what the President wants to do, they can find some law somewhere to justify it, and then anything they don't want to do, they just say "We don't have the resources to enforce this". This gives the President all the power. They should be a servant to the law, not its arbiter.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#472
post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to prove my age If you want to prove your age, there are a host of *voluntary* forms of identity you can carry if you wish to do so. Please tell me how a new *compulsory* scheme (with privacy invading overreach) is going to help you.

I mean most pubs only allows passports and driving licenses. the latter has a compulsion to keep it updated.

And even then you're never asked for it if you look over 25. Which is fair - if in doubt, verify, but usually you don't need to give over your *identity* to a place that serves alcohol.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#473

[flagged]

> living at taxpayers' expense

Presumably the form for applying for benefits has a reasonably high bar for identifying the fact that you are in fact legally present in the country? Or how else do you imagine people living at "taxpayer's expense"? Just begging on the streets?

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#474

People already work illegally. They get paid cash, off the books. New forms of ID won't stop this.

I don't think the point is to eliminate all illegal work. But the new form of ID makes work place checks real easy and fast. Add a real hefty fine for the owner and possibly ban from conducting any form business for a few years, that will have undoubtedly have effect.

There are already hefty fines for owners of businesses where the people are not working "legally". There's a "share code" that employers are supposed to check to verify visas. All the laws and machinery is already there and it does not look particularly high-cost to me.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#475
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…

Because this is a straight up lie Starmer says to try to win at least one Farage supporter and get printed in the Torygraph.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#476

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 accept all these valid points, but don’t they already know exactly who we are and have a digital file on us already? I mean, I have a drivers licence and a home address and an internet connection I typically don’t use a vpn on. There’s no way they don’t have all this already right?

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Exactly, and one more thing: because of draconian immigration regimes, once people sneak in, they are extremely unlikely to move out until they get some sort of residence, which may never come. If it was easier to get in, people will come and go as needed, and you wouldn't have massive numbers of people coming and not leaving. There are many irregular immigrants that are stuck in their new countries for decades, unable to move anywhere else at all; many even die without seeing their homeland again.

In all countries there are posh, elite, nice areas, and yet you don't see everybody moving into those areas until there is no standing room. There is a natural equilibrium that is effective.

So overly tough immigration policies actually exacerbate the problem of illegal immigration in this way as well.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#478

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…

If a State can't be trusted with data of its citizens it can't be trusted with passports, birth certificates, or any numerous other instances of identity. Being able to identify citizens is basic and essential to the functioning of a State whereby the failure to do means the total failure of the State.

In effect the State is no longer a State and is in fact entirely dysfunctional.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just imagine that a policeman, employer or anybody else with access to the information linked to the ID can instantly view our medical records, tax status and even simpler things like if we've ever been caught driving while drunk Why would I imagine that? There are privacy implications, but a unique ID doesn't mean everyone has access to all your data at any time for any reason.

All it takes is one breach or vulnerability and then yes, they DO have access to all your data. Imagine someone steals your driver's license. No biggie. Now imagine they steal your identity which is linked to everything you ever do.

But that’s already the case without a digital id. It’s not like those accounts aren’t already linked together.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#480
post #473

[flagged]

> living at taxpayers' expense Presumably the form for applying for benefits has a reasonably high bar for identifying the fact that you are in fact legally present in the country? Or how else do you imagine people living at "taxpayer's expense"? Just begging on the streets?

If they have a medical incident and go to a hospital emergency room, are they treated?
Post reply on HN