Excessive state interference or a foundation for a modern UK? The Prime Minister is due to table a compulsory new ID - BritCards - for everyone in the UK - we've been here before, so what's changed?
Spain has had a plastic ID card for many years. It confirms your ID, citizenship or residency for banking, shops, local authorities, border control, voting etc etc. But it isn't on your phone, and doesn't chase you round. Also, you can keep the original in a safe place, and use a copy for most daily things, so the risk of losing it is easily managed. Unlike phones, which regularly get lost or stolen.
I lived and worked in The Netherlands for 25 years. We had a plastic ID card. Exactly as you describe the situation in Spain. I think this would be preferable to a digital ID for all the reasons you have stated and with which I completely concur (and I HATE the name ‘Brit Card’ - so Xenophobic -what’s wrong with ID Card?)
I already have a Government recognised ID card, and Digital Registration; nominally sold at a price, but offered free around the Coronation. It is part of the Government recognised YOTI Scheme, often used to access some Local Authority Services. It is recognised for electoral purposes (the main reason I got mine!)
Only ... Nobody's ever asked me for it, at 62, I'm considerably beyond being badged for age limited products, but when produced as proof of ID, Citizenship/Nationality etc. for jobs I'm met by blank looks! And the digital platform just doesn't seem to work half the time, or if it does, it's not always accepted; I was recently asked to prove nationality by the DWP by going through exactly the same procedures as used for my Citizencard!
BTW For jobs you still have to have other forms of ID ie. a passport, in some cases I have been asked for three forms of ID (but this may be an employer stipulation, and not official)
My major issue with this, is less the compulsory nature (very few people don't carry some form of ID) but nonetheless, the compulsion is unpleasant, and will annoy many.
My complaint are the costs being foisted on the private individual, for something the State demands, and oddly enough it's most commonly reported usage will be to prove qualification to receive benefits awarded to poor too poor to live, let alone purchase fancy digital ID cards, as proof of identity!
Older readers might have heard of the "Government Gateway", a one-stop sign-in for government services using personal digital certificates.
If you haven't heard of it, that's because, unsurprisingly, it didn't work, and after £££ and of course spats between government departments, it was abandoned and is being replaced by the simpler gov.uk signup.
Stand by for another government electronic mess-up.
Standard SOP especially if it's involving IT systems They'll employ the most expensive, and inefficient tech. inadequately fail-safe checked, or tested. I once reported a broken link on a new system (replacing a perfectly adequate, working one) and received two responses from tech support: one thanking me, and had amended the code; the second used the most abusive terms, castigating me because no fault found, and wasting their time - obviously the rude git had checked after the first had sorted it LOL 😜
Many countries use cards much like the driving licence card which has information and a photo ID. Actually moving to a digital version would be extremely costly requiring massive storage space with all its on costs in electricity usage and increased water requirements for server cooling.
Smart Tech isn't everyone's cup of tea and with the level of scamming going on now will such data kept on phones be secure or will it facilitate just another level of 'impersonation'?
I seem to remember the main reason Blair’s ID card didn’t go through was down to prohibitive cost, and the number of years it would take to check and issue everyone in the country with it. Of course, if it were purely digital, some time and cost may be saved, but how much will this cost our poor, hard up, cash strapped government who are still trying to fill their black hole?
I think purely digital would be more expensive. Even barring the cost of all those smartphones, the huge and vulnerable-by-design IT system would be tremendously expensive — not just initially, but on an ongoing basis.
Also, if data is only online, it's far to easy to corrupt or disappear.
Many of those working illegally are knowingly employed illegally, so I do not see how this ID card helps. I saw on the news this morning that 'illegal working undercuts British workers'. If they have falsified or stolen a national insurance number, then the employer is acting in good faith and the employee will have to be paid at least minimum wage, the same as everyone else, so there is no undercutting. Being employed illegally does undercut British workers but this ID card will not solve that problem. Both employer and employee are doing so illegally, so they do not care about ID. Given this I do not believe that this has anything to do with employment. I find it uncanny that this announcement comes hard on the heels of record US investment in the UK specifically centred around IT and data storage.
It's not the "card", it's the database and the surveillance. In fact, this is obvious - there will be no card, it is all going to be collected, all the time, everywhere, via our smartphones.
The potential for abuse is obvious. "Ms X, our systems indicate that your profile fits that of someone more likely to commit Y offence. We're taking you into custody for your own protection, while we check your recent movements...."
What will happen to people who refuse? Presumably this would be a criminal offence. Perhaps even a terrorist offence? But of course, a British government would never criminalise people simply for exercising their right to free speech. Oh, hang on ...
Have you seen the mess they've made of the eVisa? Do you remember the NHS ransomware attack? What about Windrush?
How can anyone think an online-only ID is a good idea?
Makes it too easy for data to be disappeared, or be corrupted, or be hacked — especially as the database would have to be open, to some extent, to everyone.
Who is going to pay for smartphones for everyone? And upgrades, and repairs, and replacement? Who pays the cell phone bill?
What happens when the mandatory smartphone isn't getting enough signal, or runs out of battery, or breaks, or is stolen?
What happens to people with visual disabilities, or other problems that mean they can't use the smartphones? Who is going to teach all the technophobes how to use smartphones? Who's going to pay for that training?
This proposal would create an awkward, expensive, and vulnerable programme, whose expense and awkwardness and vulnerability would never go away.
Here's an idea: How about we use an ID card, instead — perhaps even an already-existing ID card. Say, a driver's license, as in the US "Real ID" programme. Then, no huge, expensive, vulnerable-by-design new IT system is needed. Yes, folks who aren't drivers would need to be issued with the new non-driver ID, but that's a whole lot cheaper and easier than issuing smartphones for all.
I was opposed to the original ID card scheme, but times have changed, as has my mind. It all depends, though, on implementation. For example, if it’s like Estonia’s or India’s it will be a huge convenience for the citizen in transactions with government, as anyone who has tried and failed to use their various gateways can attest. More significantly it will reduce the amount of data handed over to corporations or whoever every time we need to establish our identity: it will merely say this person is who he says he is without requiring any other personal details, especially significant in online transactions. Properly implemented it could significantly reduce ID theft, aid age verification and reduce other forms of fraud such as phoney company registrations at Companies House.
What's the problem? If you aren't illegal or a criminal why the objections. I now live in Spain, I have an ID card, no problem, saves a lot of hassle, size of a credit card so not a big deal.
With digital ID on your phone you then give almost total surveillanceby the Authorities. Next will be the injected chip which will then give the state TOTAL surveillance . All very well saying if you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to worry about. I prefer freedom to do what I want without being monitored all the time.
People are monitored all the time if they are using a mobile so why bother. The UK people were moaning about ID info years ago, overall so what, if you aren't a criminal and you enjoy travel then no problem.
Spain has had a plastic ID card for many years. It confirms your ID, citizenship or residency for banking, shops, local authorities, border control, voting etc etc. But it isn't on your phone, and doesn't chase you round. Also, you can keep the original in a safe place, and use a copy for most daily things, so the risk of losing it is easily managed. Unlike phones, which regularly get lost or stolen.
This would be an excellent compromise.
I lived and worked in The Netherlands for 25 years. We had a plastic ID card. Exactly as you describe the situation in Spain. I think this would be preferable to a digital ID for all the reasons you have stated and with which I completely concur (and I HATE the name ‘Brit Card’ - so Xenophobic -what’s wrong with ID Card?)
This concept is predicated on the notion that I trust the present and all future governors of our state not to abuse the scheme: I don't.
I already have a Government recognised ID card, and Digital Registration; nominally sold at a price, but offered free around the Coronation. It is part of the Government recognised YOTI Scheme, often used to access some Local Authority Services. It is recognised for electoral purposes (the main reason I got mine!)
Only ... Nobody's ever asked me for it, at 62, I'm considerably beyond being badged for age limited products, but when produced as proof of ID, Citizenship/Nationality etc. for jobs I'm met by blank looks! And the digital platform just doesn't seem to work half the time, or if it does, it's not always accepted; I was recently asked to prove nationality by the DWP by going through exactly the same procedures as used for my Citizencard!
BTW For jobs you still have to have other forms of ID ie. a passport, in some cases I have been asked for three forms of ID (but this may be an employer stipulation, and not official)
My major issue with this, is less the compulsory nature (very few people don't carry some form of ID) but nonetheless, the compulsion is unpleasant, and will annoy many.
My complaint are the costs being foisted on the private individual, for something the State demands, and oddly enough it's most commonly reported usage will be to prove qualification to receive benefits awarded to poor too poor to live, let alone purchase fancy digital ID cards, as proof of identity!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CitizenCard
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoti
Older readers might have heard of the "Government Gateway", a one-stop sign-in for government services using personal digital certificates.
If you haven't heard of it, that's because, unsurprisingly, it didn't work, and after £££ and of course spats between government departments, it was abandoned and is being replaced by the simpler gov.uk signup.
Stand by for another government electronic mess-up.
Standard SOP especially if it's involving IT systems They'll employ the most expensive, and inefficient tech. inadequately fail-safe checked, or tested. I once reported a broken link on a new system (replacing a perfectly adequate, working one) and received two responses from tech support: one thanking me, and had amended the code; the second used the most abusive terms, castigating me because no fault found, and wasting their time - obviously the rude git had checked after the first had sorted it LOL 😜
More power to the State — less power to the People. A dangerous idea.
Many countries use cards much like the driving licence card which has information and a photo ID. Actually moving to a digital version would be extremely costly requiring massive storage space with all its on costs in electricity usage and increased water requirements for server cooling.
Smart Tech isn't everyone's cup of tea and with the level of scamming going on now will such data kept on phones be secure or will it facilitate just another level of 'impersonation'?
I seem to remember the main reason Blair’s ID card didn’t go through was down to prohibitive cost, and the number of years it would take to check and issue everyone in the country with it. Of course, if it were purely digital, some time and cost may be saved, but how much will this cost our poor, hard up, cash strapped government who are still trying to fill their black hole?
I think purely digital would be more expensive. Even barring the cost of all those smartphones, the huge and vulnerable-by-design IT system would be tremendously expensive — not just initially, but on an ongoing basis.
Also, if data is only online, it's far to easy to corrupt or disappear.
Many of those working illegally are knowingly employed illegally, so I do not see how this ID card helps. I saw on the news this morning that 'illegal working undercuts British workers'. If they have falsified or stolen a national insurance number, then the employer is acting in good faith and the employee will have to be paid at least minimum wage, the same as everyone else, so there is no undercutting. Being employed illegally does undercut British workers but this ID card will not solve that problem. Both employer and employee are doing so illegally, so they do not care about ID. Given this I do not believe that this has anything to do with employment. I find it uncanny that this announcement comes hard on the heels of record US investment in the UK specifically centred around IT and data storage.
It's not the "card", it's the database and the surveillance. In fact, this is obvious - there will be no card, it is all going to be collected, all the time, everywhere, via our smartphones.
The potential for abuse is obvious. "Ms X, our systems indicate that your profile fits that of someone more likely to commit Y offence. We're taking you into custody for your own protection, while we check your recent movements...."
What will happen to people who refuse? Presumably this would be a criminal offence. Perhaps even a terrorist offence? But of course, a British government would never criminalise people simply for exercising their right to free speech. Oh, hang on ...
Have you seen the mess they've made of the eVisa? Do you remember the NHS ransomware attack? What about Windrush?
How can anyone think an online-only ID is a good idea?
Makes it too easy for data to be disappeared, or be corrupted, or be hacked — especially as the database would have to be open, to some extent, to everyone.
Who is going to pay for smartphones for everyone? And upgrades, and repairs, and replacement? Who pays the cell phone bill?
What happens when the mandatory smartphone isn't getting enough signal, or runs out of battery, or breaks, or is stolen?
What happens to people with visual disabilities, or other problems that mean they can't use the smartphones? Who is going to teach all the technophobes how to use smartphones? Who's going to pay for that training?
This proposal would create an awkward, expensive, and vulnerable programme, whose expense and awkwardness and vulnerability would never go away.
Here's an idea: How about we use an ID card, instead — perhaps even an already-existing ID card. Say, a driver's license, as in the US "Real ID" programme. Then, no huge, expensive, vulnerable-by-design new IT system is needed. Yes, folks who aren't drivers would need to be issued with the new non-driver ID, but that's a whole lot cheaper and easier than issuing smartphones for all.
I was opposed to the original ID card scheme, but times have changed, as has my mind. It all depends, though, on implementation. For example, if it’s like Estonia’s or India’s it will be a huge convenience for the citizen in transactions with government, as anyone who has tried and failed to use their various gateways can attest. More significantly it will reduce the amount of data handed over to corporations or whoever every time we need to establish our identity: it will merely say this person is who he says he is without requiring any other personal details, especially significant in online transactions. Properly implemented it could significantly reduce ID theft, aid age verification and reduce other forms of fraud such as phoney company registrations at Companies House.
What's the problem? If you aren't illegal or a criminal why the objections. I now live in Spain, I have an ID card, no problem, saves a lot of hassle, size of a credit card so not a big deal.
With digital ID on your phone you then give almost total surveillanceby the Authorities. Next will be the injected chip which will then give the state TOTAL surveillance . All very well saying if you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to worry about. I prefer freedom to do what I want without being monitored all the time.
People are monitored all the time if they are using a mobile so why bother. The UK people were moaning about ID info years ago, overall so what, if you aren't a criminal and you enjoy travel then no problem.
If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear ...
See also, Windrush.