Live data from Hacker News

Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

reuters.com

701–710 of 809 posts

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#701

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…

> but officials haven’t yet announced their intentions to abuse it

That one is perfect lol. It speaks to the baffling immense amount of trust people still have in institutions.

I mean, people are still outright alarmed that the BBC resort to clickbait or quietly change articles after publication. I mean, it's been a good 10-15 years - stop trusting them.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why Americans hold freedom of speech / the First Amendment in such high regard. What does it buy you? Major corruption, abuse and misconduct still happens. Being able to criticise your government doesn't seem to matter in the social media age. Look at the state of politics in the US right now. Seems like it's slightly redundant these days – a bit anachronistic? Kind of odd the obsession with it. (p…

>What does it buy you? Well, for one thing, it's not a transactional question of what it "buys". It's a matter of principle and defense against future repression or manipulation by politicians on a power trip. For example, given Trump's current and blatant attempts to crush free expression against his own policies and bullshit, or even those who constantly insult and criticize him (whining about it like a little kid…

My point isn't that you should wash it down the toilet because it serves no purpose (of course this is a useful strawman to employ when anyone criticises it); rather, perhaps, that obsessing about it and fully believing it can protect you against eg a Trump presidency isn't very healthy. A bit too much tunnel vision?*

> Well, for one thing, it's not a transactional question of what it "buys"

Let's not play semantics. It's just a phrase

> defense against future repression or manipulation by politicians on a power trip.

Why hasn't it defended against current or past ones? It's not a new amendment, is it?

> For example, given Trump's current and blatant attempts to crush free expression against his own policies and bullshit, or even those who constantly insult and criticize him (whining about it like a little kid actually) imagine how much easier he'd have had it if there were no U.S 1st amendment to use against him.

What has all that criticism gotten you? He's still President right? And there is a worrying number of people talking about a '3rd' term

> when governments can legally censor speech they decide is misinformation, disinformation or "hate speech"

Your government via its plethora of agencies absolutely does this

> At least, in a place like the U.S, where free speech remains protected (for now at least), any misinformation, disinformation or whatever speech by those in power or outside of it who create it, can be countered by others trying to speak more truthfully.

How's that working out?

> There, my good faith response to your completely absurd line of rhetorical questioning.

Wow, Americans really think they are protected from criticism like 'civis Romanus' were protected from harm.

I think your opinions are exactly those I was questioning. Maybe it isn't as useful as you think it is

* another phrase, not to be interpreted literally

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#704

I feel like governments worldwide are perennially musing “ what if we could know what everyone is doing, all the time? ”

If your cattle had a tendency to communicate with one another and wonder about their circumstance - you'd also start 'musing'.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Breach = data for all citizens. Card = one person, limited use. But most importantly: a Hitler rises to power = opposition is screwed.

Ah, good old Godwin's law... If a Hitler rises to power you will be screwed with or without an ID card, so please don't use such a silly argument.

Doesnt have to be a Hitler, imagining the worst case scenario for laws is absolutely apt.

Consider the Australian Access and Assistance bill. Among other things, it permits ministers to issue TCN's verbally. As far as we know (theres no oversight) this hasnt been done. But its concerning that the government can verbally require a corporation to (open endedly) change app functionality.

It would be better if Jim Hitler, had to fight the existing democracy to erode our freedoms, rather than just having to ask a minister to make it so.

Its absolutely better to assume the worst case than the best.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#707

Can anyone really point me out the real problem about the immigrants? How big is it compared to, for example the lack of funding of the NHS or the hyper funding of other initiatives such as war in Ukraine. Or are those things somehow related? I would be crazily scared to know that immigrant care workers will leave NHS as most hospitals relies on them. The government already made clear they won't pay people more nor w…

>Can anyone really point me out the real problem about the immigrants? This minimises the problem. The UK voters have consistently voted for reduced immigration, with polls showing the preferred number to be somewhere between 0-100,000. Those elected have consistently ignored them which has raised tensions. In the last few years, the UK had around 1 million people net per year. 1 million people is bigger than most ci…

Thank you for the numbers. Could you please clarify how much money this translates to, both in terms of income and expenses generated by skilled workers who are legally employed in the UK?

I must say I am not doubting nor being pedantic. I am indeed trying to have a conversation based on the facts and people I know. I would happily change my mind if I find reasons for that. At the same time, I would like to share my views which might give some perspective on my opinions.

Based on government figures I've saw, the annual economic contribution from skilled workers alone is estimated to range from 4 billion to gbp. Moreover, it's important to note that these skilled workers generally don't receive government benefits. Literally. They pay double on nurseries, they pay for NHS in advance, they do not have any financial government assistance at all, contrary to what people believe.

I do not understand what kind of problems they cause. Would you mind explain it to me? I am not being pedantic nor ironic. I want to understand what is the complaint?

I agree about drug dealers, rape gangs and etc, but they in the UK before and they will remain independently of the political changes regarding immigration.

Ten years and no settlement will only put away skilled workers as they will not be able to retire on time, nor have any financial safety as the UK only provides 8 weeks for them to leave after the contract termination.It also means spending more on health, education, and living, which is already a struggle.

Refugees receive £50 per week, which isn't enough for groceries and rent. The system is broken, but attacking another unrelated group does not seem to be the answer.

While I acknowledge that some individuals are abusing the system, I maintain that the overall impact is likely positive, especially when considering the near-zero population growth among native populations.

Who will pay for pensions 10 years from now? The money you pay now goes towards current pensions, and the government does not save taxes for future generations.

So 1 million people per year was the supposed peak, right? The actual numbers are definitely far lower than 5 million, I think.

More than that, NHS workers in hospitals are immigrants because no British person is insane to work for it under current conditions.

At the same time, no Brit wants to increase taxes even more to cover the costs of paying more for health.

A short-sighted solution will be another blow to the UK economy as the Brexit was. Well, they are being orchestrated by exactly the same folks.

This also bothers me because there's a clear conflict of interest. Trice is married to an editorial lead at The Telegraph and receives funding from Lloyds.

Not sure about Sky News and others, but I would not be surprised that some digging would lead to the same people.

There is a clear financial cost related to the war in Ukraine. Whether it is a fair cost or not is a moral and ethical point, which I think is an individual opinion. But there is a cost regardless. Money spent in war is money that will never ever come back at any proportion to its society.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm against the ID, but the more good faith reason for a database entry is it should eliminate fake IDs.

"Just one more bit of regulation will solve the problem" is how Britain became the most centralised country in Western Europe. The sad thing is that the majority of the population still buy it.

There was recently a request by the police for new laws about overpowered electric bicycles being ridden on pavements. Yes, they want a law against riding an already illegal vehicle in a place it is already illegal to ride it.

Now they want to make it illegal for employers to illegally give a job to people it was already illegal to give a job to by making them have a new ID, when it was already illegal to give someone a job without getting proof of their right to work in the UK!

You are 100% right

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#709
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?

There's a gov.uk wallet app and digital service in beta already. I don't think it does very much yet.

https://www.gov.uk/wallet

It's backed by gov.uk one login, which is already a database that contains a fair chunk of the populations' details.

To me, it feels like the digital id is more a case of joining existing things together than creating something brand new from scratch.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#710
post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

??? 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.

It doesn't have to be dead, that's a choice we made as a society. It's an artificial limitation if people wake up and vote against it while they still can

How can they do this? The next election in UK is in 4 years.
Post reply on HN