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

531–540 of 809 posts

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#531

Post by Muromec »

qazwsxedchac wrote: post #459
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 d…

>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.

Not really. It's part of identity management or whatever it's called to have an ability to recall ids, because they get lost, stolen and people to who they are issued die.

>When (not if) the database becomes an attribute store across a wider scope, the implications are scary.

What are the scary implication really? Most of the EU and beyond has some kind of login to the government capability. And?

What's the threat model really? The government will revoke your fancy thing to report taxes digitally for no reason and bankrupt you? They can do so without such roundabout ways.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#532

Post by diordiderot »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #346
diordiderot wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a perniciously xenophobic take, tbh. Who are you to decide your values are objectively better than theirs? /s There is a village A dragon comes to the village every year. In exchange for 2% of the children, it spares the rest and promises its “magical” protection from unseen enemies. This arrangement has lasted 2,000 years. Most villagers worship it, even though the custom has left their village far worse off…

I'm really not sure what point you're making here. What is the "dragon" in irregular migration. What is the "village"?

It isn’t hard to parse. If you’re very literal minded, forget the mapping and just engage with the story on its own terms, then we can parse it.

Otherwise, I can only assume the trade offs are too uncomfortable (cognitive dissonance, you're a gentle soul!) or it’s a bad-faith feint to shift the burden while posing as “too rational” to engage.

No analogy is perfect. The question is whether the trade off it illustrates applies. Engage with that.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#533

Post by grues-dinner »

nostrademons wrote: post #458
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...

That's basically how the existing share code system works for non-citizens. You the worker ask the government for a share code. You provide that to the prospective employer and they can check that it is valid. The same or similar system can be used for driving license validity.

The digital ID is presumably (this is my pulling a guess from my rear end, but if I had to implement it, I'd use the existing system) an extension to cover citizens too. In fact, in principle of that's how it works, it will marginally improve privacy because current status quo is basically that citizens provide their passport to the employer to demonstrate right to work via citizenship.

I also assume that the universal use of a single system means that spot-checking any workers status becomes easier. Currently if police, say, to use a common example, stop a food delivery rider and ask for their right to work they can say they're a citizen and just don't have ID on them. The UK has long derided the idea of everyone being expected to have ID with them with phrases like "papieren bitte", but it does mean that the authorities basically cannot check working statuses unless there's a physical workplace they can raid. Which is a weakness app-platforms and many people without the right to work have figured out.

A cynic might think that that kind of problem sounds a lot like a problem the government could already have solved in several other ways, but by letting it fester might finally garner public acceptance for the universal ID system they've always wanted.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#534

Post by crazygringo »

drnick1 wrote: post #446

And, of course, that digital ID will require an "approved app" (blessed by Apple and Google) running on an unrooted phone. Don't want spyware running on your phone? Too bad.

Huh? Spyware, ransomware, etc. is a dangerous problem on rooted phones. It's the unrooted ones that have protections against it.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#537

Post by Muromec »

nostrademons wrote: post #458
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...

> Prove that the validity of a statement (like "I am a citizen that is authorized to receive benefits") without revealing your precise identity.

but... why? the agency that gives out benefits has to mint this credential and has to assess your dossier. Or they can assess your dossier, write you a snail mail with a result and wire the money.

What's the use of this fancy crypto other that finding a but in this token-minting service and getting those benefits without actually being entitled?

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#538

Post by kimixa »

gretch wrote: post #480
v3xro wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Yes, but generally a Medical Incident isn't really particularly desirable. You don't really get anything out of it other than "being healthy", which could be argued as being a right, and often a prerequisite for starting to contribute. Gatekeeping that just ensures they never will.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#540

Post by Muromec »

iamnothere wrote: post #441
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…

But don’t you understand, it will be so convenient. Just imagine the convenience! Are you opposed to convenience? Frankly, you’re just being paranoid. It’s possible that mandatory digital ID could be abused, but officials haven’t yet announced their intentions to abuse it. So why are you so worried? You’re already tracked everywhere you go, and many countries already have this system. It seems to work well there for…

>(Did I miss any talking points?)

Silently pointing out to the whole world that does this already and nothing scary happened that can't happen otherwise.

The only reason we have ids is the borders and codified inequality anyway. I can't go to certain places with one id and can go there with the other. In some specific places I can go in, but would not be able to get out.

Somehow I haven't seen a lot of intersection between people who believe we should not have borders and people who believe we should not have ids.

Post reply on HN