Live data from Hacker News

Rights groups urge UK PM Starmer to abandon plans for mandatory digital ID

bigbrotherwatch.org.uk

51–60 of 152 posts

Re: Rights groups urge UK PM Starmer to abandon plans for mandatory digital ID

#51
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it require using a Google or Apple product?

Generally, yeah, to use the online government and financial services in Sweden need BankID, which is almost always on your mobile phone. You can also use a PC, although that is fading away. ID cards are also a thing, and in principle every grownup should always be carrying ID although its not like everybody really does when walking around the park etc. There are paper and in-person alternatives to the online services…

> Generally, yeah, to use the online government and financial services in Sweden need BankID, which is almost always on your mobile phone.

Can someone explain to me why phones seem to be considered more secure than online communication channels or desktops? The way I see it, it's a computing device you install all sorts of crap on, sourced from all sorts of questionably trustworthy sources (especially as all sort of retail companies have started moving from loyalty cards to apps).

The Estonian solution from the early 2000s - a dedicated identification device, seems far more secure and reasonable than the modern Swedish one. If any bank in my area started offering YubiKey in leu of app authentication, I'd switch to it in a heartbeat.

Re: Rights groups urge UK PM Starmer to abandon plans for mandatory digital ID

#52

The UK already has (various) digital IDs but this is the 'new' one https://www.gov.uk/using-your-gov-uk-one-login . So what's going to be different? Just making it mandatory? I can see some justification (sorta) for not making it mandatory, but saying it won't improve citizens lives is complete rubbish. Having one login for all government services would massively improve the efficiency, especially if other department…

Brazil has a similar system (gov.br), which provides access to almost everything you might need from the government, including notary services, public healthcare records, driver's licenses, consulate services abroad, income tax, social security, unemployment benefits, welfare benefits, and more.

I also understand the privacy argument that arises from consolidating all these systems, and I'm generally pro-privacy, including in some extreme cases. However, this service makes life so much easier across many dimensions of daily life, and I think it's worth it. I can only hope that the GOV.UK login achieves a fraction of this.

Re: Rights groups urge UK PM Starmer to abandon plans for mandatory digital ID

#53

Can anyone explain why this is a bad thing? All I hear about this is conspiracy theories or anti-government rhetoric but never a clear reason to why this is bad. I can't see a reason considering all of the benefits it can bring, and similar things have been rolled out across Nordic countries.

I don’t think it’s bad on its own, but from my experience, the rollout can be messy and lock people out. Aadhaar in India had long registration queues, biometric issues, and banks making it mandatory. Even in the UK, the digital residency permit switch caused issues at border control.

Re: Rights groups urge UK PM Starmer to abandon plans for mandatory digital ID

#54

The UK already has (various) digital IDs but this is the 'new' one https://www.gov.uk/using-your-gov-uk-one-login . So what's going to be different? Just making it mandatory? I can see some justification (sorta) for not making it mandatory, but saying it won't improve citizens lives is complete rubbish. Having one login for all government services would massively improve the efficiency, especially if other department…

One Login is an "authentication" system, an oAuth provider with identity added on. This means you can prove your identity once (to various levels of confidence, as defined in GPG45 [1]), and use that same verification across different government services.

When people talk about a national ID system, they're often talking about some form of "authorization", i.e. proving that you are entitled to certain things.

There currently isn't a system in the UK that can definitively prove that you have access to every service. For example, even being a British citizen and having a British passport doesn't automatically entitle you to access the NHS.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/identity-proofing...

Re: Rights groups urge UK PM Starmer to abandon plans for mandatory digital ID

#55
post #7

It's BS. Having a single ID instead of having to show a gas bill to prove your address is the right approach. Most European countries have a single ID card, and that's perfectly fine. In fact anyone who drives in the UK already have an ID card -- driving license. Now it's just a question of one card everyone would have and you could use to ID yourself when using banks or government services.

This always felt weird to me in the UK. As a foreigner, I have to carry my passport anyway, but how do citizens who don't have driving licences identify themselves in day-to-day life? Say they get carded at a pub?

Re: Rights groups urge UK PM Starmer to abandon plans for mandatory digital ID

#56

The UK already has (various) digital IDs but this is the 'new' one https://www.gov.uk/using-your-gov-uk-one-login . So what's going to be different? Just making it mandatory? I can see some justification (sorta) for not making it mandatory, but saying it won't improve citizens lives is complete rubbish. Having one login for all government services would massively improve the efficiency, especially if other department…

Government website login isn't really a 'digital ID' is it? I've never thought of it like that anyway - could be used as one, maybe, but it isn't currently. E.g. you say this would help the NHS - well gov.uk login isn't any different from NHS app login is it? So the NHS already has 'digital ID' too.

(Don't expect this to solve multi-computer-system NHS though, ha! That's been tried and failed how many times, for how many billions? At least we have the app now, such as it is, I suppose.)

Re: Rights groups urge UK PM Starmer to abandon plans for mandatory digital ID

#57
post #2

Why is the UK politics scene so focused on digital ID? Blair first proposed it and I feel like I've heard about it continually since with no progress. Different justifications every time too

Because the UK does not have a national ID system like nearly every other country in Europe, the reason it goes nowhere is that it costs money and no one wants to spend the money on it.

And entrenched (if fading, perhaps) cultural opposition to it.

Re: Rights groups urge UK PM Starmer to abandon plans for mandatory digital ID

#58
post #2

Why is the UK politics scene so focused on digital ID? Blair first proposed it and I feel like I've heard about it continually since with no progress. Different justifications every time too

Because the UK does not have a national ID system like nearly every other country in Europe, the reason it goes nowhere is that it costs money and no one wants to spend the money on it.

I don't think so. I think it raises peoples' hackles because it is "not something we do here" - English-speaking countries seem to not go with mandatory ID in the same way as continental Europe. Maybe a Napoleonic/Common-Law thing?

(Personally, I don't object to the idea).

Re: Rights groups urge UK PM Starmer to abandon plans for mandatory digital ID

#59

Can anyone explain why this is a bad thing? All I hear about this is conspiracy theories or anti-government rhetoric but never a clear reason to why this is bad. I can't see a reason considering all of the benefits it can bring, and similar things have been rolled out across Nordic countries.

I think its that some anonymity gives safety from the government.

IE during WW2 Holland kept such meticulous records on its citizens that it indirectly leads to the greatest numbers of imprisoned ethnic groups ( because the information was there , easily accessible by the invading forces.

I think thats a good example of how too much info results in vulnerability for citizens.

I dont have an opinion on this just sharing what I think is a good example.

Re: Rights groups urge UK PM Starmer to abandon plans for mandatory digital ID

#60

Can anyone explain why this is a bad thing? All I hear about this is conspiracy theories or anti-government rhetoric but never a clear reason to why this is bad. I can't see a reason considering all of the benefits it can bring, and similar things have been rolled out across Nordic countries.

There are several reasons. I believe, many would acknowledge that it absolutely has good sides. But there are worrysome sides. As I life at the moment in Switzerland I know a little bit about the discussion there:

The implementation of an E-ID could just not good. In Switzerland people voted against E-ID already once and I believe now everyone agrees nowadays that it would have been an bad bad implementation back then (too much reliance on external companies). The same was true e.g. for Covid Certificates. The different implementations around Europe had different qualities and e.g. Switzerland ended up with one of the better (or maybe best) ones, where the identity of people were protected.

Let's just take the example of voting. It is already hard to explain to people that voting works as intended. Look e.g. at the US were I've the impression people do not trust regular voting anymore, despite having people from other countries checking if voting works correctly in the US. But overall it is a system almost everyone is able to understand. But the moment you bring cryptography into the game it's over. 99% will never ever understand why they should trust this. And honestly I feel with them. There are a lot of software people here and we all know how awful our whole industry cares about security overall and how critical software components depend sometimes on a few people. At least the whole implementation should be open source, everything else should not be tolerable.

What I have the impression most people fear, is not the E-ID itself, it is how it will be misused. Suddenly websites will now request verification for dubious reasons. While it is not the case with a regular ID, it will be trivial to do so in the future. The same with mass surveillance, it was not practical before internet, now it is, so governments do it. I think here comes one of the main arguments against it people would bring up, there is no simple instrument for people how they can fight back in case they dont like to identify with their E-ID.

To some degree there is mistrust in government (in Switzerland less then in Europe I believe) for very valid reasons. But still e.g. in Switzerland they had records of many people years ago. After the whole topic came to the surface it was a debacle and new laws were created to explicitly forbid this. E.g. in Switzerland it is not allowed by law to just store some information because are from the left-wing or right-wing (just regular left-wing/right-wing, not extremist), just as one example of something simple. Despite of this government still started to do again. Several newspaper requested this information, which now has to given out, and found it, despite being against the law, the government is doing it again. This kind of thing you can find for other European countries as well, and for the US I assume I don't even have to start.

Then what about people without Internet? At the 38C3 in germany last year was a presentation about this topic (Don't remember the full name, just that is is somehwere on https://media.ccc.de/c/38c3): that we always think it is just the old people, but this is not true.

Sure you could argue, that people give away they privacy willingly anyway, but I'm not sure if this a good reason to argue against all the suspicious some people have.

Here an article from a Online newspaper in Switzerland, tough its German: https://www.republik.ch/2025/08/29/ein-klares-jein-zur-e-id

At least in Switzerland I believe, if they just slightly would change the law it would benefit everyone. E.g. that in case an internet page expects an E-ID, that first it needs to through (a probably costly) evaluation what data is really, really needed, with many privacy experts at the table, to always reduce it to the absolut minimum (the E-ID has this feature to be even better than an ID regarding this). Additionally that there must be e.g. always a possibility to somehow call and have a possibility to do it without E-ID.

Post reply on HN