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

801–809 of 809 posts

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#801

Post by surgical_fire »

flir wrote: post #800
surgical_fire wrote: post #776

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Good points, that also point to security being orthogonal to convenience. Rather than being opposite to one another, they are in tension.

Alternatively, you could have a local password manager that syncs the encrypted passwords database to a private remote server, for example.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#802

Post by flir »

surgical_fire wrote: post #801
flir wrote: post #800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Good points, that also point to security being orthogonal to convenience. Rather than being opposite to one another, they are in tension. Alternatively, you could have a local password manager that syncs the encrypted passwords database to a private remote server, for example.

I really like "in tension". It implies, to me, an inverse relationship but an elastic one. Not a simple 1:1.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#803

Post by frollogaston »

fruitworks wrote: post #48
frollogaston wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

like IPv6

whats wrong with ipv6? other than square brackets

Everything except for the part where the address space is bigger. We got a halfway migration now that everyone is angry about.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#804

Post by ruszki »

DangitBobby wrote: post #782
ruszki wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I’m arguing that it can be used for good, and it shouldn’t be dismissed when it cannot be used for evil things by law, especially not because of future possible evil usage, because that’s true for everything. Btw, why do use the internet? It’s quite contradictory to argue about this here. And that is the case since almost its inception.

Everything can be used for bad or good, some things the balance is so bad they aren't worth considering.

There is no difference between changing a law more, than less. It can be done the same way, with a single vote. So the balance doesn't matter at all, especially that voters clearly don't make distinctions based on that.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#805

Post by squidbeak »

mr_toad wrote: post #741
squidbeak wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not correct in saying nobody knows. This has been in discussion for several years, and the standard is outlined in detail on the government website [1], and also discussed in a blog [2]. But I fully agree if you mean it hasn't been adequately explained to the public [3]. [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-digital-identi... [2] https://enablingdigitalidentity.blog.gov.uk/ [3] https://www.gov.uk/g…

I couldn’t find anything in that document or the blog that answers the most basic question - is it going to be an app? It literally contradicts itself at one point: “It will also be stored directly on your own device - just like contactless payment cards or the NHS App today.” An app has totally different capabilities from a card in a wallet.

Mr Toad, the wallet is an app. The naming choices are ripe for confusion.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#806

Post by squidbeak »

hardlianotion wrote: post #767
squidbeak wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a full section of the government website dedicated to this subject, and also a recent act of parliament which in part prepared legislation for it, the Data Use and Access Act 2025 [1]. See my other answer in this thread for the links. The Digital ID scheme isn't new. The only change is from it being optional to mandatory. [1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2025/18/enacted

Thanks for the link - I was aware the government was preparing voluntary ID. I meant the zero proof element specifically as this is the first time I have heard mention of it.

These are referenced in the framework guidance (which is iterative) intended for DVSs. Here for instance:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-digital-identi...

If you want a technical explanation of how they work, you will need to loose elsewhere.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#807

Post by squidbeak »

rcxdude wrote: post #722
squidbeak wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not correct in saying nobody knows. This has been in discussion for several years, and the standard is outlined in detail on the government website [1], and also discussed in a blog [2]. But I fully agree if you mean it hasn't been adequately explained to the public [3]. [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-digital-identi... [2] https://enablingdigitalidentity.blog.gov.uk/ [3] https://www.gov.uk/g…

Can you spell it out further from that document? There's only one mention of zero-knowledge proofs in there, mentioning it as one thing that could be used in verification. The rest of the document is similarly simultaneously dense and vague, so it's really not obvious to me that the actual implementation will be cryptographically privacy-preserving.

I assume you mean the framework guidance. Bear in mind this is intended for Digital Verification Services. Cryptographic standards are referred to under 16.5. Zero Knowledge Proofs are a broader concept and better explained elsewhere, for instance

https://codethechange.stanford.edu/guides/guide_zk.html

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#808

Post by SanjayMehta »

scott_w wrote: post #133
wsc981 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course a digital id doesn’t prevent illegal immigration. Proper border checks prevent illegal immigration. The digital ids are introduced for other reasons - this is something Tony Blair has been pushing for a long time.

My understanding is that it makes checking job eligibility easier, so enforcement of non compliance is easier. A big source of illegal immigration is visa overstay ( https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/un... ), which ID can solve by tracking the visa status. There are benefits to UK citizens, such as being easier to open a bank account and to comply with Voter ID laws.

Papers please.

Re: Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

#809

Post by aucisson_masque »

throwaway150 wrote: post #594
aucisson_masque wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, immigrants have low paying jobs and regularly use cash to avoid paying taxes. Most have no sense whatsoever of cohesion with the country they live in and instead make groups of similar culture that don't really try to fit in.

All my immigrant friends are skilled workers who earn more than an average citizen, contribute more taxes and pay exorbitant fees for visa, health surcharge and NIC. I am sure there are immigrants in low paying jobs too. Perhaps we need to talk about different types of immigrants rather than clubbing them all into one "immigrant" category and reinforcing the same tired tropes about immigrants.

Sure, there are some who end up in high-paying jobs. But the majority end up taking low-paying jobs that regular citizens don't want to take, that's economy 101. If your social group is made of highly skilled and well-paid people, you aren't going to see the mason pouring concrete when it's overheating.
Post reply on HN