zlacker

>>DamonH+(OP)
As well as the Estonia eID system works (aside from that time it got hacked[0] and that other time they leaked all the photos[1]) and how well a digital (non-government) system works in Scandinavia… I have to say…

As a Dual British/Swedish Citizen, I really do not trust the UK government. They have proven over and over and over, that at every opportunity presented they will increase their own authority. I don’t believe I have personally witnessed any other advanced economy that so ardently marches towards authoritarianism.

So, no matter if it’s a good idea or not. I can’t in good faith advise the UK having more powers. Unfortunately the UK government themselves can sort of just grant themselves more power. So…

[0]: https://e-estonia.com/card-security-risk/

[1]: https://therecord.media/estonia-says-a-hacker-downloaded-286...

>>dijit+N2
The thing is, to me, the powers of the government to require more identification for different things is orthogonal to the idea of digital ID. We already have to identify ourselves in a variety of circumstances (e.g. mortgages, bank accounts, voting, using "adult" websites etc), and the gov. can get the information from various third parties on demand already.

Implementing those requirements didn't depend on there being a digital ID system. Instead we have a hodge podge of bad requirements (like "wet" signatures on specific documents, using of non-UK based private providers etc).

Implementing a digital ID system could reduce inequalities (for example, people who don't have passports and driver's licenses have more difficulties in some circumstances) and also reduce dependencies on non-UK orgs who may not do that well with privacy.

That's not to say there aren't risks of course, but other European countries seem to have managed to implement these systems without becoming totalitarian police states :)

>>raesen+d7
> ...powers of the government to require more identification for different things is orthogonal to the idea of digital ID > That's not to say there aren't risks of course, but other European countries seem to have managed to implement these systems without becoming totalitarian police states :)

Yet also: a country's requirement for identification is orthogonal to it becoming a totalitarian police state.

In British politics, there is a strong current of opposition to international institutions and treaties such as the European Convention on Human Rights[1][2] and the International Criminal Court[3]. The UK's commitment to human rights is enough in doubt that one encounters situations such as German courts being unable to extradite a suspected criminal because of the poor treatment of prisoners in Britain[4].

Countries like Germany and Belgium are able to have mandatory ID cards without too much issue because of characteristics including their written (and actively litigated) constitutions, judicial independence and proportionally representative election systems. ID cards might be make them lean more or less totalitarian - but it doesn't matter as much, as the rules about identification make up only a small part of a huge and robust framework of law and human rights.

With few constitutional protections for UK citizens, and what independent institutions there are under constant attack from various political parties, I don't think those who object to digital ID can be blamed for being suspicious of the government's motivations.

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/25/tory-candid...

[2]: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/08/21/labour-mp-eu...

[3]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/3/threats-and-intimida...

[4]: https://eucrim.eu/news/german-court-denies-extradition-to-uk...