Live data from Hacker News

Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

reuters.com

791–800 of 809 posts

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#791

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? In countries like Italy it's actually mandatory to have a form of identification on you when in public, this isn't the case.

The "brit_card" is on your phone and you will carry it everywhere. It is also a walking surveillance beacon and hacking target.

You could but you dont necessarily have to, no different to your passport or drivers license. The technical implementation remains to be seen. It may even be more secure than some forms id, such as those with NFC/RFID built in.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#792

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.

[flagged]

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#793
post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any ideas how leaving the european convention on human rights, deporting some barbers, takeaway owners and illegal construction workers, and stopping small boats in the English channel will reinvigorate Sunderland, fix South Wales after coal mining stopped, restart British Steel, bring life back to coastal holiday towns in the aftermath of cheap flights to warmer places, fire up the tired overworked Londoner on the c…

Of course it won’t help. Never claimed otherwise. That’s my whole point - while everyone’s lives and the state of the country seem to get worse, people blame the other and look for the person offering them easy answers. If their lives were looking good, if government services weren’t a mess, and if they perceived the government was actually changing things for the better, reform would have a hard time finding suckers…

> "The small boats issue is enough in the public eye it’s going to have to be tackled"

It has to be tackled even though it won't fix the things the supporters want fixed, because they're doing a surface level reaction. Your earlier comment opened with "To characterise all of those supporters as only interested in populist bastardry seems a bit of a surface take on the issue"; "blame the other and look for the person offering them easy answers" is the populist bastardry, it's not a surface take to say what people are actually doing.

If you'd tried to argue that people are liking Reform's plans to scrap thousands of EU laws, cancel HS2, roll back labour protection laws, cancel ULEZ zones and give more kids asthsma, scrap 20mph zones except "where safety is critical" (because some pedestrian deaths are less important than car drivers driving everywhere they like as fast as they like), encourage smaller landlords (because housing will be better when the wealthy own more houses), etc. then you could say voting for Reform wasn't a surface take. How many Reform supporters are switching because of their pledge to bring in "online delivery tax at 4% for large, multinational enterprises"? Who thinks "Cut A&E waiting times with a campaign of ‘Pharmacy First, GP Second, A&E Last’" will put the Hope back into Land of Hope and Glory? And how many are acting along the lines of "Nigel hates the people we hate! he will hurt the right people!"?

> "reform need to be beaten by the UK government fixing things and making the UK optimistic about the future, rather than just same-old same-old and the whole place feeling like it’s in managed decline."

So far in this government, that's feeling very a very remote and unlikely future.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#794
post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it won’t help. Never claimed otherwise. That’s my whole point - while everyone’s lives and the state of the country seem to get worse, people blame the other and look for the person offering them easy answers. If their lives were looking good, if government services weren’t a mess, and if they perceived the government was actually changing things for the better, reform would have a hard time finding suckers…

> " The small boats issue is enough in the public eye it’s going to have to be tackled " It has to be tackled even though it won't fix the things the supporters want fixed, because they're doing a surface level reaction. Your earlier comment opened with "To characterise all of those supporters as only interested in populist bastardry seems a bit of a surface take on the issue"; "blame the other and look for the perso…

> It has to be tackled even though it won't fix things

Yep, because it has become a public embarassment, it's very present in all the news coverage, and the government have promised to get a handle on the situation but haven't. If they don't get it in hand the press and opposition will continue to use it as a club to beat them with. Like as not this is now a large political issue in the UK. Yougov polls suggest that around 70% of the UK public now have negative views of people crossing in small boats -

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/WTZfT/3/

But look beyond that (and the generic "people coming to work illegally" category). The support for 'populist bastardry' against the wider category of immigrants drops off substantially. So yes, a government wanting to stay in power in the UK is probably going to have to do something to reduce at least the perception that people are entering the UK this way, but they won't need to follow through and go 'full Farage' to placate a lot of the public.

> because they're doing a surface level reaction

Yes? Have I claimed anywhere that the reactions of the general public in this matter are rational, sensible, moral, or really anything other than misplaced and misdirected anger about the decline of their own circumstances? I think you'll find I even called them "suckers".

Don't mistake me for someone that thinks anything about Reform is reasonable or a good plan. It's fucking shocking.

> it's not a surface take to say what people are actually doing.

That's pretty much the definition of 'surface take' I'd go for. To be other than surface you need to look at motivations and beyond that the actual causes of the behaviour.

The poster I replied to and accused of having a surface take was saying Labour won't win many Farage supporters by tackling the small boats because the supporters are only interested in populist bastardry. Firstly, the figures above show us it's far from only Farage supporters who have views on this specific issue. Secondly, that's not all that Farage supporters are interested in.

For example look at this info on what reform supporters believe - https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49887-what-do-reform-...

Yes, there is a lot of populist bastardy of the "bring back hanging!" variety in there, including literally that. But there are also signs of wider disaffection and some quite left-wing views -

  "Rich people in the UK are able to get around the law or get off more easily than poorer people"
  "Big businesses in the UK take advantage of ordinary people"
  "Ordinary working people do not get their fair share of the nation's wealth"
  "Utilities like energy, water and railways should be run in the public sector"
  "Rich people in the UK should be taxed more than average earners"
There are likely quite a lot of these people who could be won over to Labour by the government taking a fairly hard line on irregular migration but otherwise pursuing a pretty socialist agenda. Writing them off as only interested in populist bastardry overlooks that there are positive ways they could be brought around.

> If you'd tried to argue that people are liking Reform's plans...

I would be very surprised if most Reform supporters had the first clue what the party's actual plans are, beyond the headline of deporting immigrants.

> So far in this government, that's feeling very a very remote and unlikely future.

I very much agree, which is why I'm coming to the sad conclusion that Farage is quite likely to be the next PM.

tl;dr - Reform support is a symptom of mass disaffection and perceived decline in living standards. But Labour are backed into a corner and have to stop the boats regardless.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#795

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…

Hey we can make a new style of cooperative VPN: everyone shuffles all their traffic and uses each others IDs randomly so the data makes less sense

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And in a situation where that is warranted (e.g. a traffic violation), you should probably have some form of proof of identification on you anyway

In the UK all cars have number plates front and rear, so that's covered already.

That gives the car's identity though, not the driver's identity

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#797

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm too cynical but from where I'm sitting Google and Apple already have all the info about citizens in a giant database that they use for their own purposes. Why are we upset that the government might create a more limited database? The cows are long since out of the barn on "don't collect a giant database of everyone's personal information"

The worst genocides in history were commited by governments against their own citizens. Central databases like the UK proposal is a bad idea if your concerned about current or future bad actor states. American companies, whilst pulling off some seriously unpleasant capatalistic practices, haven't committed genocide at least!

Is your theory that somehow the US government is prepared to commit a genocide but not prepared to make a copy of Google's database?

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#798

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.

>but the more good faith reason for a database entry is it should eliminate fake IDs. Really? If anything it would make them easier. Hackers routinely break into government databases to exfiltrate information. An ID attribute databases would be no exception, for exfiltration, or simply modification of data. Ie: creating a fake ID.

How are you creating a fake ID by taking data, though?

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#799
From the governments page on this^1:

>How we will ensure it is available to everyone > > Millions of people in the UK lack access to traditional proofs of identity like passports. It is estimated that 10% of UK citizens have never had a passport, while 93% of adults own a smart phone. > > This means it can be difficult to prove your eligibility for services such as opening a bank account and claiming benefits. Digital ID will give you free, secure identity verification.

I get it, you're the government so double-speak is part of the deal, but it's like you're not even trying to make it sound convincing any more, and that scares me.

Putting aside the fact that the reason why some people don't have a passport is _not because it's difficult to get a passport ordered_, it still doesn't explain why having 2% more people who don't have a passport makes it easier to have this new solution -- let alone address the fact that some people do not have a smartphone!

^1 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/digital-id-scheme...

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#800
post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. Well I gave a couple of examples of what I'm getting at. So how can a convenient way to establish a digital identity also be secure? To run with the see-saw analogy, what element would of that process would make the process both more convenient and more secure? (make the see-saw rise at both ends).

My point of them being orthogonal is that both ends of the seesaw can come down together. The logical conclusion is that they can come up together. In other words, it is not a seesaw. Counter example - the usage of a password manager so that you have strong passwords on every service. It is extremely convenient (I don't have to remember passwords anymore, just the one for the password manager). It is also inherently…

Random follow-up thought:

If the password manager is cloud backed, you're at risk of a LastPass-style data breach. If it's local only, you're at risk of someone confiscating your device also removing your access to all your online tools.

(I think I'm edging towards "measuring secureness is really hard", which isn't where either of us came in).

Post reply on HN