Digital ID – The New Chains of Capitalist Surveillance
theslowburningfuse.wordpress.com
theslowburningfuse.wordpress.com
An open standard for the world to use for this seems like the ideal way you would want it to happen.
I also personally think we are going to need some form of digital id and hopefully some sort of attribute based credential implementation à la the DECODE project[1], where we can start raising the barrier of entry for all of these bot farms to require at least a felony in identity theft to start.
Curious what others opinions are :)
[1]: https://decodeproject.eu/publications/final-report-pilots-am...
We have had DigiD in The Netherlands since 2004 (at least that's when it got its current name) and it's glorious. Everything from requesting a new passport, logging to your tax administration, registering as a company, making an appointment for Corona vaccination to doing declarations with your insurance company is done with DigiD. The authentication flow is super-smooth and quick.
I know there are risks to having one central account (slightly mitigated by support for 2FA and scanning your ID card/passport/driver's license NFC as another factor). But it makes dealing with the government so much easier. We lived in Germany and it was a total disaster in comparison.
I left Germany 3 times and my quality of life took a hit each time. The first 2 I went back; sadly I can't do it again.
Public transportation was in the top 3 of what I've experienced in Continental Europe; schools are seen as respectable and good; healthcare was generally very good if expensive (14.x% of salary is a bit much). I could go on.
Germany has definite problems, and the federal overruling of things like “rent brakes” is cause for concern. But to call the country ’a total disaster’ can only be done by one that, quite honestly, has no idea of what a bad or even mediocre country looks like.
Sorry, but with how rich Germany is I can and should expect more from this country.
I've yet to live in a country where the public institutions aren't being torn apart by privatisation and cost-cutting. That's sadly universal. So I'd say Germany fared better than the other places I've lived: Portugal, Spain, France, and Belgium. In Belgium we have a higher marginal tax rate with the same results as you're complaining about.
Your universities are still seen abroad with high regard.
Rent… well, damn, yes. Rent is very high everywhere, for a number of reasons largely due to letting foreign and corporate investment hoard up property, while at the same time building too much high-cost residential and not enough for lower and middle class people (single or otherwise). The market won't correct itself until only individuals are allowed to own housing and up to a certain highly-progressively taxed limit. That said, my rents in Germany were lower than, say, Belgium.
I agree you have a rich country and I didn't live there all my life. But it's still one of the few countries I'd say is doing something for its citizens, largely due to the German understanding of the collective good and social norms :)
I get the convenience part. I am from Sweden. We have BankID. I really get it.
But in reality, when centralized systems go to shit, they go to shit REAL BAD. So I personally oppose any such measures on both principles but also... it's okay if life is a little bit less convenient. Not everything needs to be ultra optimized for efficiency. Privacy and systemic integrity is worth at least that much imo.
To become acceptable, however, they need to be allowed to be done, even if illegally. If you arrested every homosexual the moment they kissed someone, then homosexuality would never have become legal.
Perfect enforcement leads to an ossified society that only changes when the people who can lobby for laws that benefit them want it to. It will be a perfect dictatorship that can never be toppled, it can only get worse.
Every dystopian film or movie starts with some tyrannical society and a resistance movement. Now imagine you made resistance impossible, which is what perfect law enforcement will do.
I don't mean this dismissively. I assume there is a series of steps that make sense that I’m not seeing.
* ID checks for social media (to protect children)
* A digital ID card, allowing ID check records to be provably linked to the original ID document (to prevent illegal working)
* The police arresting people for posting unfashionable takes on human sexuality to social media
And even if you trust the current government, there are very real fears the next government will be Trump-admiring right wing populists who are eager to upend the status quo.
When you look into these cases, they always turn out to be "a sustained campaign of harassment and abuse against one or more named individuals". It took years for even Glinner to finally cross that line and get his collar felt.
No that isn't the case. The are substantial problems in the UK around the the various hate speech and terrorism laws. Pretending there isn't by hand waiving away concerns and pretending that them being found not guilty later after having their life turned upside down (the process is the punishment) is quite honestly disingenuous.
UK is in big trouble, it's a naughty nanny state
I can't work out what this is supposed to refer to? Is this supposed to coexist with the "parents have complete responsibility for their kid's internet usage" from the Online Safety Act discourse?
The first step you need to take is view a government as a hostile entity. It's not your government, it's occupational government. It's unjust by default and you don't agree with the rules it makes, including immigration and taxes.
Now imagine there are three arms of the government -- the one that collects taxes, the one that administers unemployment benefits and the other, which gives out visa, including family reunification permits.
You, as natural born citizen want to bring another person from the outside as a partner and for that you need to sponsor their visa. Government in their infinite wisdom decided you need to earn a certain amount of income for a certain time to be able to sponsor a partner (otherwise you both will be able to claim benefits). To do so you get a list of unemployment premiums paid from one agency and submit to the other.
Now here is the kicker -- if the government is able to aggregate the data from all the agencies mentioned above, they can better implement their policy, i.e. deny you family reunification visa AND bust your for not paying taxes. To aggregate the data they need to have the primary key to join datasets, including data sets from the governments from other countries (see CRS).
In this imaginary situation you can get your partner a visa and immediately stop working. If the government is able to join datasets, something will automatically trigger and you will get the letter saying visa is revoked.
You can disagree or agree with any specific policy, or you can deny government the capability to implement privacy invading policies.
Think of it as a backslash against tracking by google on all the sites with ad sense, algorithmic feeds and the rest. Maybe gestapo is not sending you gulash tomorrow, but it's symptomatically not great.
Add:
Can the government ask Palantir to join datasets without the primary key? Sure they can and they do, that goes against the same principle as above. Is it better to have civil freedoms and privacy protection that come from literally doing Holocaust? It's better, but it's not on menu yet.
A hostile government can already link your data from all sorts of places. Digital ID at least helps us for more security.
Without Digital ID + Hostile Government you have the worst of both worlds.
It's very often that government has a capability to retroactively assemble a very detailed information about a specific person, but doesn't have a capability to proactively screen the whole population and implement policy.
Illegal immigration is a good example of it -- when somebody is already sitting in a van it's possible to figure out whether they are a citizen or not and maybe even find pictures of watermelons on their phone. It's however impossible to selectively block phone numbers and bank accounts of all the people who are present in the country without government authorization.
That may be true, but the point is that it makes law enforcement less perfect, and that can be good. That is the point "stavros" is making.
Rosa parks broke the law by seating on a seat where she was "not supposed to". Hypothetically, if there were a quick ID check machine on the bus, it could have just prevented the whole thing from happening at all.
SMH
No. Observing hostile governments replaced non hostile governments and used previously harmless capabilities is sufficient.
Perhaps your digital ID is needed to open a bank account, get a phone number, sign up for insurance, etc. Now, suppose some fascist government comes into power. They could start cancelling the digital ID's of people or groups they do not like or are bigotted against. These people start losing access to critical infrastructure.
Now, this could already happen, even with imperfect paper IDs, of course. But by making everything digital, we are reducing societal resilience towards such kind of hostility.
That is true. I was answering skrebbel's question about [how does having a digital ID system lead to perfect law enforcement?].
> Governments enforce plenty of paperwork checks & blocks today. I think a digital id strictly improves this scenario.
I hope you are right. Personally, I am not against Digital ID. My concern is, (a) how can we make sure that the infrastructure operating the digital ID is democratically controlled and not just owned by tech oligopolies; and (b) what security practices, social norms, and legal checks and balances shall we implement to prevent weaponization of this sort of infrastructure and violations of privacy?
You aren't a citizen in such case - you aren't legally allowed to do so. This is another issue with law being in power but it's enforcement over the years was spotty - and people just got used to it.
What you are saying is that government blocks you from committing a crime - which it should try to do so as government's responsibility should be first and foremost towards it's citizens.
Whether you agree if such law is moral or not is irrelevant in this case. As an active participant in the system you could vote for parties that want to change it or campaign to have it changed(even by talking to people) if you find it immoral.
Digital ID on the other hand affects citizens, and allows power abuse towards citizens from government, including unelected officials and middle-level clerks.
You may have missed stavros's comment in the parent thread. The fact that the government is not perfect at blocking people from commiting crimes is actually good in some cases
It's the success rate that matters.
"Improves" does a lot of work here.
The ID checks in the UK are an example of something I'm against.
Are you saying that it's 100% garanteed optional in all situations? It has no power to be used to control or even coerce you or discriminate against you or build a profile and track you which can be used at a later date by a different party when a new political wind decides it finds you inconvenient? I find all of that hard to believe while still performing the convenience function let alone any legitimate law enforcement function.
If physical ID gets heavily discouraged and Digital ID gets mandated for everything, you basically have to keep a tracking device(a phone, which already fulfills that role) that is now tied to government records. Location, who do you meet, your contacts, when do you access your bank etc - all of that can be exposed extremely easily. The ease of access is the problem - as normally law enforcement needs to go through lengthy process to access such data across multiple vendors - but now all it takes is just storing metadata about access to Id Portal, and can do so in bulk.
Now they have it in single place - and in most cases - no code is open source, with no way to verify if it even does what it promised to even if it was open source.
The issue is that even if you have 100% trust in current government, you are one election away from a change to something vastly different. Always ask yourself this question when a law is proposed:
- would I be fine with this legislation if the government in charge represented everything I hate?
> It will be a perfect dictatorship that can never be toppled, it can only get worse.
This might be the asymptotic steady state, due to the absorbing nature (in a Markov state sense) of future dictatorships. You only have to enter the state once, then you get stuck in that state. But democracy has to be ever vigilant, and it cannot fail even once. There is an unfortunate offense-defense asymmetry there.
In many cases, they looked at the census records; something that most western nations have today anyway.
Let's be real: if your government decides to slaughter an entire class of people in its own borders, there's nothing you as a citizen can do except flee and hope to get out without being caught (or sent back).
I dunno, the Nazis did a fucking good job without Digital ID. They weren't overthrown by a resistance movement, they were crushed by the combined might of the Allied and Soviet armies.
https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-...
P.S. Thanks for sharing Decode, it looks good, I will be diving deeper into it this weekend. TIA.
It acts as a SSO for Banks, library, 2fa for debit card, hospital websites, all kinds of government services.
Makes it easy, because you don't need a new or different account.
All just to save carrying a wallet?
It is possible, to trust the government in other parts of world.
That means trusting all future governments, all layers of government, all govt organisations with access to the data, and all governments they might share data with, and all other organisations they share data with.
You have to trust them to both use data correctly, AND to have sufficient security to keep the data safe while greatly increasing the attack surface.
I can't say if there are backdoors in place for them to log in, and if that is (currently) legal.
Hospitals and libraries are government run, I would assume even if they had their own login, they could manage to snoop the data, no?
These are all online service. So it's not even a wallet argument. But we recently got digital drivers license, which can be used in the "real" world. That is one card less you need to carry around. Only in DK and only for DK citizens though.
A lot more effort. In the UK public libraries are run by local authorities who do not seem to routinely share that information with other government bodies.
Libraries and hospitals are not purely online services though. I do carry a library card. I do not need one for hospital or doctors appointments.
In the United States, what you read is your business. The librarians have been one of the very few groups who have successfully pushed back against the new administration's demands for information.
Last year, I could log in to my very large city's library web site and see everything I checked out for the last few years. I looked a couple of weeks ago, and all that history has been purged, I presume as a cautionary move to preserve my privacy. Good for them.
There's other issues (UX, privacy to the 3rd parties) and further improvements here coming with better wallets (EU-wide) soon, but even today it's absolutely possible to have digital id that doesn't tell the government every time you use it.
The answer is yes: which is why banks are licensed and have ombudsmen. As are telcos.
No modern society is going to maintain a parallel government economy to serve the vanishingly small minority who live in fear of private companies.
Perhaps they should (IDK), but they won't.
It's not the _concept_ of private companies. It's specific things that those specific companies do. e.g.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-30/google-an...
Meaningful regulation would mean e.g. air-gapped infrastructure so they can't make inadvertent privacy mistakes. And guaranteed service levels, and a service of last resort.
Google have based built a business model without accountability and transparency. Which is fine, as long as we're not forced to use them by the state.
It's not just the specific things that those companies do, it's the (lack of) structure of rights and entitlements that the users have.
Maybe so, I don't know. Though it is worth remarking that "private" banks in the US really are only semi-private. The (admittedly imperfect) regulations that banks are subject to starts to blur the lines between public and private. Not to mention that there are far more banks than smartphone handset-and-OS makers.
> No modern society is going to maintain a parallel government economy to serve the vanishingly small minority who live in fear of private companies.
This is not the only option (though it would potentially be an option for some sufficiently-powerful societies). Other options could include:
1. Multilateral coalitions to do some combination of specify/design/build smartphones and/or their OS
2. Specify a set of user rights and regulate smartphone handset and OS manufacturers accordingly
As a sibling commenter said, this isn't about living in fear of private companies as such. It's about not wanting to be coerced into a system of products that don't preserve liberal rights.
> i can tell that living in a country with great digital services is a lot less stressful
For everyone who deserves to participate in society?
Yup. Look at train tickets in England. For now it's a convenience but you'll notice the law hasn't kept up with the push to have tickets on phones: the law still says you must produce on demand a ticket when requested. So if your battery runs out or your phone crashes or the app glitches or you've annoyed the "safety" department of Google/Apple... it's entirely your problem
A moody ticket inspector is under no obligation really to give you a few minutes to sort it out
:)
First of all, my digital ID is still a physical card. Second, you're on the wrong forum complaining that people need a device to do things in life.
Having an option for digital ID is great, and there are many potential benefits to it. Requiring a modern smartphone for it is wildly out of touch.
I think it's exactly right forum, because we know how unreliable and unmagical are those things and are in a good position to judge the risk of relying on them too much.
If the ID becomes about more than proving right to work, and becomes a daily carry, it's not hard to see the appeal of a government down the line tapping into an always on-hand microphone, GPS, internet enabled device.
Even putting the tin foil hat aside, I and many people like me enjoy leaving the phone at home, and want as little time spent on the thing as possible.
Last year they removed the ability to register[0] yubikey FIDO2 tokens affected by the EUCLEAK 'vulnerability', despite it not posing any security risk even by their own admission, and nobody seems to have cared. The whole thing screams security theater, they require the much more expensive FIDO2 Level 2 keys for no reason (which limited you to just Trustkeys at the time after yubikeys got banned) while their own sites crashes[1] if you give it a secure password.
At the end of the day, if not it's required by law the only other guarantee you have is a broad userbase that will complain if it's taken away and at least at the moment it's clear that no such userbase exists.
[0] https://www.a-trust.at/de/%C3%BCber_uns/newsbereich/20240905...
It's actually quite a good idea to have this, even if you have a smartphone, in case that you lose access to it temporarily.
1. To open a bank account you need an address
2. To rent somewhere (get an address), you need a bank account
3. See above
The same happens for children opening their first bank account. They get round this usually by having a parent vouch for you, however, this isn't much use to children with estranged/dead/abusive parents.
A system that is mandatory, acts as sufficient ID in all cases (proof of ID, proof of address, etc.) and is free for the recipient has the potential to make otherwise excluded peoples' lives easier.
Lots of countries have this circularity, including Continental ones with ID systems, and I think it's an intentional anti-immigrant measure.
(this of course tells us where all the ID pressure is coming from: voters want an identity system that can be weaponized against immigrants and The Other.)
If anything, there's really a big advantage to it for the banks - most locals already have banking, immigrants are the one market where you can get new customers without having to push them past the effort/laziness of switching from their existing setup.
> This limits their options of bank accounts.
Now this:
> Which has no relation to Digital IDs whatsoever
Other countries use their ID systems for exactly this purpose, so I don't see how this has "no relation."
Regarding passports, really at this point people who don't have one don't want one.
If you don’t have a passport, for instance, it’s much harder for a UK citizen to prove their right to work in the UK, for which your employer is liable if they get it wrong.
So please, tell me again how having a clear proof of identity tied to your right to work, and other things, will “not change anything.”
Regarding right to work (you are changing topic): if you are a citizen you can show your passport, if you don't have a passport because you don't want one you can show your birth certificate. If you are not a citizen you show your passport and provide a share code. It is simple and there are no "excessive requirements".
No! This is another one of those things that ends up being a serious problem for a few people, because the current proof of address standard is "utility bill".
> you are changing topic
This seems to be particularly bad in the "digital ID" discussion, almost every speaker including official sources seems to mean something slightly different by this phrase.
Because utility bills are the simplest. Obviously you can show a tenancy or lodger agreement, or letters from "official sources".
If you have nothing then Digital IDs won't help you anyway because, if they do include address, you will also need to start by providing a proof of address to the Digital ID system!
> if they do include address, you will also need to start by providing a proof of address to the Digital ID system!
Yes, you're correct, however, there are starting points (like what's needed for a passport application). The difference is that, if there's a legal requirement to have one, then the government will provide ways for more people to get it for no cost. Unlike a passport that costs over £100 (+ the photos).
The way it works where it works -- you register with municipality and then whenever you need something, they either give a letter with your address (and maybe charge 25 bucks for it) or the agency gets it from the registry maintained by municipality on the need to know basis.
Since the need-to-know basis is set by law, your explicit consent isn't asked for.
If you do not have a permanent address (I didn't for many years). You just need someone with a permanent address where these things can go e.g. friend or family member or you can pay a small amount for a letter box with a key (which is what I did).
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68b6b7e7536d6...
> If you don’t have a passport, for instance, it’s much harder for a UK citizen to prove their right to work in the UK, for which your employer is liable if they get it wrong.
No it isn't. You need a Birth Certificate and a previous paycheck and something that has your NI number on it, and usually something to prove your address e.g. Utility Bill.
Also you don't have to insert your personal brand of politics into every discussion. There is nothing outrageous about the list of professions of counter signers. All they are wanting is someone that can be identified easily in a community.
For shits and giggles, I just looked up the checker on the UK Gov website and… if you don’t have a passport or easy access to your birth certificate, you don’t have enough evidence of right to work.
Is this possible for most people? Yes. Does it leave groups excluded? Absolutely!
I never said that you required a driving license. I said that at driving license was photo-card ID.
You need a passport or birth cert and NI number as a British Citizen for a right to work check. Most employers also want proof of address, so bring a utility bill.
I've been through this process about 3 times in the last 5 years. It isn't difficult or onerous.
> For shits and giggles, I just looked up the checker on the UK Gov website and… if you don’t have a passport or easy access to your birth certificate, you don’t have enough evidence of right to work.
I actually posted the checklist. I am quite aware what is required.
You can literally order replacements for a birth certificate easily. A replacement birth cert can be got for £12.50 and takes 4 days to receive.
https://www.gov.uk/order-copy-birth-death-marriage-certifica...
Nothing about this is "excessive".
> Is this possible for most people? Yes. Does it leave groups excluded? Absolutely!
People that can't produce basic documents it excludes.
You were claiming that the right to work checks were "excessive". Producing one or two documents that you should have is not "excessive".
> You need a passport for a right to work check. I've been through this process about 3 times in the last 5 years. It isn't difficult or onerous.
A new passport costs over £100 for a paper application. That can be prohibitive for people.
> You can literally order replacements for these easily. A replacement birth cert can be got for £12.50 and takes 4 days to receive.
These are additional costs, it's also an extra £3.50 to find it (taking 15 days), and possibly another £38 to get it quickly.
So yes, these are all costs that add up to exclude people from partaking in society.
And all of this assumes your employer knows what the hell they're doing. Given the fines are painful, it's entirely possible your employer refuses valid documents "just in case" and sticks to the ones they've relied on in the past.
This is not an argument, and is merely a way to shut someone up because you don't like them disagreeing with you. It is quite a loathsome tactic.
> A new passport costs over £100 for a paper application. That can be prohibitive for people.
I agree that it is expensive. However you don't require a passport though and you can use a Birth Certificate and something that shows your NI number.
> These are additional costs, it's also an extra £3.50 to find it (taking 15 days), and possibly another £38 to get it quickly.
Ok. So £15. This is not "excessive" cost. Like with many things if you want something done more quickly you are required to pay extra.
If you are looking for work you really should make sure you have these documents as you should know that you are going to need them.
> So yes, these are all costs that add up to exclude people from partaking in society.
It may surprise you that a good number of things require monetary payment in some form or another to partake in society.
It is perfectly reasonable for the government to require basic checks to be carried out before you employed.
> And all of this assumes your employer knows what the hell they're doing. Given the fines are painful, it's entirely possible your employer refuses valid documents "just in case" and sticks to the ones they've relied on in the past.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here.
That to avoid fines an employer would break the law and not do right to work checks? Or that they are doing a right to work check and do additional checks?
Ok, let me break the argument down for you:
1. Person needs job
2. Person doesn't have job
3. Person therefore is low on money
4. Person needs to prove right to work to get job
5. Person needs money to buy proof of right to work (+ time to receive it)
6. Person needs money
7. See 2 and 3
Your privilege is what blinds you to a simple process.
> If you are looking for work you really should make sure you have these documents as you should know that you are going to need them.
This is what I mean by "your privilege is showing."
> That to avoid fines an employer would break the law and not do right to work checks? Or that they are doing a right to work check and do additional checks?
Read it again: they're skipping the checks and just using the one they know (passport) because they don't know if other legal forms of documentation are good enough. I know this is going to blow your mind but plenty of employers have no idea what the laws are. You might say "well that's on the employer," but it's the person who needs the job who suffers.
Failing that, there are other support mechanism in place provided by charities, family, friends and even the state itself, in the unlikely event they are that are completely destitute.
None of this says anything about whether I am privileged or not. You know nothing about my personal circumstances or family background. The only reason anyone uses this line of argument is an attempt to shut people up or as a shaming tactic. Neither of which will work with me.
It also doesn't make any of the checks "excessive". It merely means that they may cost a relatively small amount of money.
As for the ability to produce basic documents, there is nothing privileged about being able to produce basic documents. What you are showing is simply a "bigotry of low expectations".
> Read it again: they're skipping the checks and just using the one they know (passport) because they don't know if other legal forms of documentation are good enough. I know this is going to blow your mind but plenty of employers have no idea what the laws are. You might say "well that's on the employer," but it's the person who needs the job who suffers.
I read it fine the first time thank you.
What you are describing now I would imagine is discriminatory and thus illegal. However IANAL. In this scenario the problem is with the potential employer in this circumstance. That isn't a problem with the right to work checks, and is a problem with the employer.
TBH. It really feels as if you are inventing reasons why right to work checks should be considered "excessive" to shoehorn in your own personal politics.
I watched a video just yesterday from someone (middle class) who explained that, by not having a passport, it took him weeks to get the necessary documentation together to prove his right to work in the UK. As a UK citizen.
> None of this says anything about whether I am privileged or not.
Oh boy, let's see:
> It merely means that they may cost a relatively small amount of money.
> What you are showing is simply a "bigotry of low expectations".
> What you are describing now I would imagine is discriminatory and thus illegal.
Out of this comment alone.
> I read it fine the first time thank you.
Except you completely misunderstood what I said, so you didn't "read it fine."
> However IANAL.
I can tell.
> the problem is with the potential employer in this circumstance.
Which primarily hurts the person who needs to work. What do you propose they do?
> TBH. It really feels as if you are inventing reasons why right to work checks should be considered "excessive" to shoehorn in your own personal politics.
I'm just pointing out how a mandatory Digital ID system, designed to prove right to work as a way of tackling illegal immigration (and thus illegal employment), could also benefit groups who aren't well-served by the current system.
This is an issues with the employer not following the checklist, which I posted in my first response to you.. That is not the fault of the legislation. The checklist is easy to understand and straight forward.
I do not have a passport (for quite a long time) and have no once had a problem proving my right to work with an employer.
> I'm just pointing out how a mandatory Digital ID system, designed to prove right to work as a way of tackling illegal immigration (and thus illegal employment), could also benefit groups who aren't well-served by the current system.
No that isn't true. You original claim was that it was "excessive". I took umbrage with that as it is a complete misrepresentation. It just isn't true and your scenarios that you presented are either unrealistic or not to do with the legislation itself.
Combine that with you being preoccupied about my supposed "privilege" as tactic to deflect from the point being made and making snarky backhanded comments, I no longer wish to talk to you. I am going to leave it there.
And yet you don't seem to have an answer to "what happens when they don't follow it?"
> You original claim was that it was "excessive"
Take the full context:
> are explicitly because there’s no single proof of your right to work in the UK.
> scenarios that you presented are either unrealistic
Except they happen.
> or not to do with the legislation itself.
What is your solution then?
> I am going to leave it there.
Because you've had 4 opportunities to answer my basic question and can't?
No. It is because you've been rude several times to me without cause, you don't seem to actually read anything I say and therefore I no longer wish to talk to you.
I've done nothing but quote and answer your responses, while you ignore my questions and (wilfully?) misinterpret everything I say and projecting your own behaviour onto me. Don't be surprised that I have a low opinion of your contributions.
The accuracy of this made me chuckle out loud!
Also what is wrong with being middle-class?
And nobody said there anything wrong with being middle class.
A savings account you don't need proof of address but I think most will ask for your NI (social security) number. Some will send snail mail to the address you provide to enable withdrawals.
The fact that the system is not 100% consistent 100% of the time is a feature, not a bug.
Dutch digid is tightly coupled with your address. All documents only go via regular post to your registered address in the Netherlands. No address? Moved to another one? Didn't register new address? Moved out of country? Good luck getting or updating digid.
Digid verification goes to your phone. Lost phone or get stolen? Changed mobile number? Guess what, no digid for you anymore.
I mean people have physical passports and they sometimes lose those which doesn't seem to be a blocking issue.
Also, once you go beyond very basic services you might discover digid only works if you are a citizen. Otherwise you are back to papers.
You're betting that the government are always going to be nice to you and those around you, carefully ignoring all the history books.
News flash, if your "liberal western government" wanted to they have more than enough tools to do it already. See all the repressive governments with institutions stuck in the 60s.
- Don't trust corporations that you have no control over. - Vote wisely for the government you do have some control over. - Accept compromises are needed in a society of millions rather than constant political conflict.
Start with the above for a better life.
If people got off the internet they might realise they have all the tools needed to make their country a better place.
As far as their “tools” I invented a stack which demolishes all digital surveillance. The real point is we need people like me not people like you, then we’d actually have solutions to these problems. YOU are the problem. Your weakness and laziness is what enables these horrible patterns.
Only if you didn't pay attention in history class.
Certain European governments didn't tattoo serial numbers on the arms of certain citizens so they could more easily access government services and check out library books.
You can say "Europe isn't like that anymore" all you want. Governments change. Power shifts.
Less than a decade ago, Europe was saying that Russia is no longer a threat because it was welcomed into the Western economy. Things change.
The present is not the future.
In a world where we would might actually see societal benefits in having people prove things about themselves*, could we not leverage technology to emit verifiable tokens that say “I have the right to work” and “my eyeballs have this shape and are this far apart”** without the world turning into 1984?
(I suppose with enough people there could still be a black market for token generators where you could feasibly buy one that matched a subset of your biometrics.)
* Illegals have the potential to be exploited just as much they themselves can be exploitative. It goes both ways.
** Is it possible to have biometrics that can be verified against my physical presence, but which can’t be used to identify me in a crowd?
1. You cannot open bank account without presenting share code from gov.uk, which shows your photo and right to stay and work when generated. 2. You cannot rent without presenting same share code. 3. You cannot go on cruise ship without presenting that. 4. Employers cannot hire you without presenting that code.
Codes are temporary, you login, generate and share that.
It's very much digital ID that's been in place for many years by now. So getting it to everyone makes sense, either "mark" everyone in a country or "mark" no one. And EU citizens been "marked" for a while and tested on with that system.
A digital id can be great but it needs some extra decorations to make it better suited to being used in the wild. Some thoughts:
What happens if "the system is offline"? No healthcare that day? No transactions? What are the effects of downtime, whether intentional or cause by hackers etc?
What happens in countries with low literacy rates? Some people cannot read or write, some countries use paper only, how will you travel to those countries?
On privacy abuse, I think there should be an app alongside the digital id, that when a third party requests information, I get the request and I have to approve it. It should have an expiry date attached so that the third party has to delete their records. I should be able to see exactly what data they request. What happens if the system is offline?
A digital id can eliminate many cases where people have to "trust" each other and they would rather rely on the system instead. Lets say the bank asks me to give them certified copies of my id or statements from a different party. Many fraud occur as people can forge documents, so with a digital id, this whole step gets eliminated as the bank can simply ask the gov for the information so they don't have to trust me or that the documents are valid.
Some laws might be needed to ensure that you are forced to keep your data up to date, so that when someone needs to request your home address (as an example, an attorney might need it), they should be able to get an up to date address.
But still, all round with how things are at the moment, such a system WILL be abused, especially by special interest groups, politicians, scammers etc. Technically feasible but the specific society might not be compatible with the convenience it brings.
That being said, I do appreciate that it must look very different when you don't get access to it, especially when so much of travel and government assistance relies on it. Our digital Id solutions definitely still have accessibility issue for instance. And I do believe that in some societies, it can be (and maybe is) used as a "boot to the neck".
I would say the main goal should be to make it easier for anyone to obtain and use the benefits of these tools, but that it relies on a society where the government protects personal freedom of movement as necessary.
If any private parties like banks, social media, or online stores are allowed to check your digital id, they are going to be a privacy disaster.
Financial privacy is a pipe dream at this point, so I'd prefer basic bank accounts be run directly by the government. At least that way, they can more easily be held accountable for their actions.
Enforcement of the state's desires by private corporations leads to all kinds of evil.
Jharkhand has the most of these, due to the underlying issues and activism on Right to Food in the region.
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/death-by...
I also remember a case where an infant Aadhaar was issued by CSC at the hospital and was celebrated as a win because the doctors refused emergency Heart Surgery without the infant having an Aadhaar.
Digital identity is on the slightly more controlling side of this, but the article focuses entirely on the cynical perspective without considering the positives.
What are those positives you allude to?
"The government" is not an abstraction, it's bunch of people, fallible people, who may or may not have your best interests at heart, so really, why should they have much to do with the every day existence of the public?
The ID question splits into two halves:
1) ID requirements: situations where you cannot proceed without presenting ID
2) ID issuance: issuing an ID to comply with (1)
People here, and the thin liberal/libertarian side of UK politics, are quite against (2) because they think it will lead to (1). But it turns out to be very easy to impose (1)_in half-assed and inconvenient ways even without (2). We just got "identify yourself to use social media"! That's already happened, except the people you are identifying yourself to are random non-GDPR US data broker services which are almost certainly cc'ing US intelligence on a copy of all the faces you show them.
(2) is where the real fight is, and now we've mostly lost that (because the public wants authoritarianism so long as it's used primarily against The Other), not having (1) becomes a matter of dealing with an inconvenient and broken pseudo-ID system where "utility bill" is a valid form of ID and organizations may require things that no longer exist like "original printed bank statement".
Given the US president’s inflammatory rhetoric about “Democrats” and “radical left”, this passage is an ominous prediction:
“Welfare can be rationed through digital checkpoints, ensuring that only the “deserving” poor receive aid. Policing is strengthened through biometric databases, making dissent and protest more dangerous.”
This mirrors the reasons for resisting Voter ID laws.
And given story after story written here on HN about corporations who are unaccountable for their poor data handling, given digital services routinely deny users fair resolutions for bad algorithmic actions or ambiguous “policy violations” and without human arbitration. (Ha! Or just Byzantine department compartmentalization).
If you’re not chilled by the thought of Universal Digital ID for every single bit of life’s necessities, why no? Are you team Ellison? Do you think there will be room for _you and your family_ on the Ark?
https://fortune.com/2025/09/28/larry-ellison-ai-surveillance...
In the US we don't have any official government digital ID but instead various data brokers are providing it... with no real oversight. If the people of the UK reject government digital ID they may get Palantir digital ID instead. It's not clear to me which is worse, the government playing by its own rules or private companies playing by essentially no rules. Europe may be better because at least they have GDPR.
You don't need to keep Europsplaining to Brits. We aren't all idiots. We know you have ID cards etc and we know about Estonia.
Also if we reject one your ideas, it's not always because we misunderstood it - we can understand it AND think it's a bad idea. I know that often hurts the egos of Germans, the French and the Dutch ;(!
It's funny because it's often Europeans not understanding British politics...the irony ;)
we can understand it AND think it's a bad idea
Please explain why Oracle ID would be better than one of the existing governmental/nonprofit systems. Genuinely curious.
I would, if I held that position. I'm explaining my idiotic government's opinion, not mine. Though I totally didn't make that clear.
Similar for many other digital things: they could be good or bad depending on how you do them. As long as 99% have no clue of IT it's pretty normal that digitization evolve against the common interests, when people get a bit of knowledge then things change.
Imagine the alternative: each government department has their own auth system to roll out and maintain, and you have a gazillion logins to manage etc.
What I agree with, is that some system is needed to help those without an identity, or at the border of the system. Digital stuff can help there too.
- we already have some forms of IDs. Most of us have personal ID, driving license, you data exist in government tables
- we already have some forms of IDs online. Everything is stored per email address, and phone address
- this makes some people do not care
- until government starts using it for nefarious reasons. All it takes is one president to change, one super power to shift
- people are ignorant, until it is too late
- the problem with digital ID is with centralization, that it is goldmine for hackers, it can be used to spy on you if all your data are in one bucket
- therefore people who say that they have digital ID lack imagination on what can happen
- it all works, when everything is disconnected, platforms, governments, etc.
If this ID is only required at point of reference for job applications, as they are implying, why does it need to be operated via smartphone app? Can it not just be a card, or website? If it's purely digital, what happens in the case of a leak, cyber attack or internet outage?
If the ID grows in purpose in the future, does this mean we'll have to carry smartphones around with us at all times as if it were an extension of our body? You don't have to be much of a conspiracy theorist to take issue with the idea of carrying an internet connected microphone, camera and location tracked device around at all times.
They aren't revealing anything yet. I want the UK to stay a country where you don't need to reveal identification at a whim, as opposed to a country where you must always carry it at all times ready for questioning. I don't want to live in a state where a lack of smartphone is grounds for suspicion of criminal/illegal behaviour.
Of course not, why would it be there? I'm talking about the way a government acts, not what they declare in centuries-old documents. The vast majority of modern countries are unquestionably capitalist, despite not pledging their affinity to it literally. If the frameworks in your country are centered around supporting and regulating a capitalist system, then it's a capitalist country. That shouldn't be a controversial or partisan statement. All countries use regulation to railroad the way their economic system will run, and just because the USSR et al. were way more totalitarian and uncompromising doesn't mean the rails are completely absent where you live and that your country's systems are some kind of a free and natural outcome. All nations exercise this control. Every country has greater economic plans that are in line with an ideology or movement they think will be good, and laws are used to nudge people and businesses towards making all the "correct" choices.
But the government isn't capitalist.
Would you mind providing a more specific critique of what they're arguing? So far, all you've said just comes off as ideological reflexes. I don't even need to caricature you to say that your post is just "My thing is always good, and the only good. Any other thing is bad." with no further argumentation.
the people pushing this must face catestrophic consequences for failing to impilment a digital sytem of ID that is perfectly secure, and immune from abuse. no mights,no coulds, no excuses, no mumbling,no clauses, no public private, secure national ID, fuck with it and go to jail forever
This is the classic surface level grasp where the author uses words like capitalism where they really mean corporatism -- I hope the author isn't against the free and mutually beneficial exchange of goods and services between two willing parties
Secondly just replace the word in this quote ^ with communism...or any large state apparatus for that matter, and it still could work.
"Surveillance and discipline" comes from Foucault's book "Surveiller et punir," which was translated into English as "Discipline and Punish". It argues that the logic of surveillance from prisons has worked its way into a bunch of institutions in modern society.
Articles in this style feel to me like a word salad of leftist shibboleths that never really amount to an actual argument: capitalism, resistance, settler-colonialism, domination, class rule.
My point is not that you need continental philosophy to understand the article. It's that the author assumes the truth of the philosophy. It's not argument. It's just repetition.
Why is there suddenly so much talk about vague implementations of Digital ID? Is it because of the UK proposals? No one seems to know exactly what that amounts to either - but importantly it seems to be nothing like what people in the rest of Europe mean when we say "Digital ID".
If you want to discuss "Digital ID" - or write a long blog post about it - then please just describe what it is you are writing about. Don't use it as a label for everything you don't want.
Uh, what is the word capitalists doing here? All of the examples are of the states. Notably, most of the states doing those were the least capitalist of all.
In Soviet Union (and Russia) you have an internal passport that you have to carry at all times and show to the cops if asked. You need/used to need a residence permit or some other explanation to be somewhere other than your address stamped in the passport (in fact, earlier they wouldn't give rural people passports at all, so they wouldn't travel). Or btw if your photo is too old you could be taken to a police station. I have been, almost, and the only difference added by capitalism is that you could conveniently pay a bribe on the spot (it was literally the birthday I was supposed to change my photo so I got a free birthday special after some discussion)
I surrendered my internal passport with my Russian citizenship and never had "capitalists" offer me any replacement digital ID! It's jarring, what am I supposed to show to capitalist cops?!
Sure, surveillance, etc. But the author is clearly extremely biased and keeps harping on the sins of Paul to condemn Peter.