zlacker

[return to "UK Petition: Do not introduce Digital ID cards"]
1. dijit+N2[view] [source] 2025-09-28 18:23:32
>>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...

◧◩
2. skelet+fj[view] [source] 2025-09-28 20:22:14
>>dijit+N2
Our system in Estonia works well.

I don't get the resistance to a digital/national id in other countries. To us it is quite bizarre.

Some have explained it with a lack of trust between citizens and the country.

But without such digital id it is impossible to have such digital government services as we have here. The government services need to verify and autheticate the citizen, so they only access their own data and not someone who has the same name and birth date by accident.

I don't see how such a system gives the government more powers. It already has all the data on its citizens, but it is spread out, fragmented, stored with multiple conflicting versions, maybe some of it is stored in databases where no one cares about security, etc.

◧◩◪
3. gslepa+Do[view] [source] 2025-09-28 21:02:10
>>skelet+fj
> I don't get the resistance to a digital/national id in other countries. To us it is quite bizarre.

It depends on the country and its relationship with the people. If the people trust that their government represents the people's interests, there is little push-back. In countries where citizens have reason to believe their government is hijacked by interests that do not have their best interests at heart, then every move is viewed with suspicion.

In this case people are tying Digital ID to CBDCs and social credit systems, which is a reasonable thing to do, given this is exactly how China uses them to enforce 15-minute cities with checkpoints between them. All citizens conversations are tracked, their movements are restricted as well [1], and their ability to purchase goods & services are tightly regulated based on their behavior via the social credit system. This is the world that people who are pushing back against this are trying to avoid.

[1] https://x.com/songpinganq/status/1972382547427590401

◧◩◪◨
4. majorm+qr[view] [source] 2025-09-28 21:22:01
>>gslepa+Do
Seems like a red-herring. Does a government need a digital ID to do that? Many do that with the "free market" of publicly-tradable information + pre-existing government IDs already used for certain things. I don't know for sure how much the UK government is purchasing all that, but there's a lot of cameras and tech tracking in the country already, like those of us across the pond also are watched with.

It won't reverse surveillance states but fraud is also a huge problem that deserves addressing.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. iamnot+Yz[view] [source] 2025-09-28 22:28:12
>>majorm+qr
Yes, governments do need a centralized common identity if they intend to build something like a social credit system. Those without adequate experience dealing with the US system, for instance, may assume that the government already has your info and thus such a system is redundant. However, this is simply not the case. US government systems are a hodgepodge of different systems built by different vendors, over different computing eras, many of which lack a primary key relationship with something like your social security number (the current “default” identifier). Many are plagued with duplicate records, data problems, and other issues that prevent easy correlation of records without human verification. Talk to some people in the IRS or Social Security and you’ll quickly get a sense of how many problems this can create! Maybe it’s improved since I last talked to people about it, but I doubt it.

A central ID enforced on all systems by statute would significantly reduce the barrier to creating “airtight” oppressive systems. While the inefficiencies in the US system have a cost, certainly preventing the implementation of more efficient social benefit programs, they also provide a barrier against more efficient social repression. Given the political animosity present in the country right now, it’s probably good that we don’t have the ability to create a turnkey totalitarian system. Things are bad enough as is!

More generally, in nations where the population feels suspicion towards their politicians and bureaucrats, the people may prefer to leave inefficiencies baked into the system in order to hamper potential oppression. Those social tensions and trust deficits should be resolved before proceeding with any ambitious central ID schemes.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. reaper+HF[view] [source] 2025-09-28 23:37:01
>>iamnot+Yz
US government systems are a hodgepodge of different systems built by different vendors, over different computing eras, many of which lack a primary key relationship with something like your social security number (the current “default” identifier).

This is a feature, not a bug.

Even though we're only at the very beginning of the various U.S. systems being merged, we're already seeing it being abused.

(One example: States using license plate reader data to prosecute women for getting abortions in other jurisdictions.)

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. xp84+vs2[view] [source] 2025-09-29 16:47:38
>>reaper+HF
Honestly with things like abortion, where there are sincerely held beliefs with good points on both sides of it, I think it would be less work for literally everyone to truly leave it to the states and everybody just moves to the nearest or most convenient state that aligns with their values. I’m so sick of this one issue being a perennial divisive force. Both sides have a point. Go live wherever you agree with the policies. And if the blue states want to operate abortion clinics for runaway teens from red states that’s fine, then they can also build dorms for them and pay for them to stay there. Red states can do the opposite and build state-sponsored birthing centers and pay for childcare for the runaway teens from blue states whose parents want to force them to terminate.
[go to top]