I do not support Digital IDs (part 2)

Since I last published a blog post about the UK Governments Digital ID plans, a few things have happened.
I remain unsatisfied by the governments responses and attitudes and I am still concerned about this proposal.

First, the petition on the government website has reached nearly 3 million signatures.
That’s nearly 1 in 25 people in the country that disagree with the plans.
The government gave a useless response to this, and it is awaiting a debate in parliament

I also wrote an email to my local MP (who is a member of the Labour Government), detailing my concerns.
The response I got back failed to accurately address any of the points that I had raised, and stinks of PR-drivel that they’ve obviously been instructed to copy and paste back to anyone that broaches the subject.

1. It doubled down on the line that this was merely a proposal and there would be a consultation. I’ve read and responded to a few public consultations in the past few years, I know how they work. The government has an idea, and they ask just enough questions worded in a leading way to get answers that can lightly reshape what they’re planning, but never enough to risk the possibility that the project should be substantially changed or cancelled altogether.
2. The response reiterated that this would in effect be a digital ID card – already a deviation from the initial idea that it would simply be a digital right to work check.
3. It used mealymouthed jargon about “encryption and authentication and decentralising”, reminding me that “the highest data security standards will be followed as well as best practice”. Unfortunately for my MP, I actually understand cybersecurity, and these buzzwords with no substance behind them do not fill me with any kind of confidence.
4. The response uses fearmongering, scaring me about the risk that having multiple documents creates opportunity for “forgery and fraud” should I not have a digital ID, without addressing the very obvious question of how consolidating ID into a single point of failure reduces the risk of identity fraud, rather than heightening it because now there’s only a single document you need to forge.
5. It repeats the nonsensical doublespeak that the scheme “will not be compulsory”, while beginning the very next sentence with the words “It would be mandatory”.
6. The MP attempts a final cynical tug at my heartstrings talking about how this will help disabled people, therefore the scheme is justifiable for everyone.

Not once did he answer my concerns about the ultimate goals of the scheme, how accessible the implementation would be, nor what the security of implementation and trust of management would actually look like.
I have given up hope of my MP taking my concerns seriously on this issue.

Yesterday (at time of writing) the UK Government recently held an informal debate (we are still awaiting the full scale debate demanded by the aforementioned petition) about their forthcoming Digital ID plans.
In it the official responses from Labour party representatives revealed yet more cause for concern.
They attempted to deviate discussion by accusing the SNP of hypocrisy because in Scotland they have smart cards (entirely voluntary), digital government accounts (entirely voluntary and nothing to do with a national identity scheme), and previously had a COVID system (necessary in the midst of a global deadly pandemic, mothballed when it was no longer needed, and again nothing to do with a national Id scheme).
They failed to address any of the concerns that opponents brought up, surrounding what the goals of the scheme would actually be achieved, how issues with digital connectivity would be addressed.
The government has repeatedly made claims that because it works in Estonia it must therefore be able to work in the UK, with no mention given to the fact that Estonia has been perfecting and adapting this for decades, on top of more decades of non-digital ID use, whereas the UK is jumping into this idea completely virgin.

A point of great concern rose when the government started talking about federation of data storage during this debate.
It seems the government has completely dispensed of the idea of this being a simple digital right to work check, even though barely a month has passed since the last big announcement of this project being exactly that and nothing more.
Instead, the scheme (card? app? single sign on? API? dashboard?) will no longer be the digital equivalent of some sort of right to work check, and now might instead be some sort of federated data sharing service between government departments.
Federated data storage brings with it huge considerations about privacy and security – you need to design endpoints for accessing data and making sure they are entirely secure, you may need to digitise whole datasets to make sure they can interact with this, you need to ensure that permissions, controls, logging, implementation security is standardised across every government department and public body that might interact with this.
While I would in fact be very pleased if the government were to make improvements in these areas as a matter of course, the fact these requirements seem to have been tacked on to this proposal as an afterthought does not fill me with confidence.

Viewing this cynically, it is clear that the government does not actually want to commit to detailing what exactly the digital ID scheme will look like, and I suspect there are 3 reasons for this:

1. The government does not actually know what they want to do here. Some advisor behind the scenes suggested this proposal because they need to be seen to do something about immigration, only because they themselves have been making such a big issue of it, so they suggested an ID system and tried to water it down to make it palatable.
2. When the backlash happened and they were faced with serious questions about how it would actually be implemented and run they realise that the scheme is likely unworkable. So they are deliberately keeping it nebulous and fluid that way it can change while still keeping the same name, so that much like the ship of Theseus, in a few years time before the next election they can claim they successfully implemented “something” that they promised, regardless of whatever it actually is.
3. By keeping the details vague, it stifles debate and accountability. You can’t challenge someone if the thing you’re challenging changes to fit whatever your opponent desires most in the moment. You can’t later accuse someone of lying or failing to deliver if they never actually promised anything concrete.

I will still keep raising my concerns, but I am at a bit of a loss as to what I can actually do short of screaming into the void.

lonm.vivaldi.net/2025/10/22/i-…

#DigitalID #politics #privacy #security #UKPol #UKPolitics #Politics

I do not support Digital IDs (part 2) | LonM's Blog

My responses to the latest development with the UK Governments Digital ID debacle

^{lonm (LonM's Blog)}

This Month’s Two Tiny Changes

Each month during 2025 we’re offering two tiny changes which may help improve your life. This month …

1. Do a timed 10-minute tidy every day. Improving the cleanliness & tidiness of the house will help relieve depression.
2. Brush your teeth standing on one foot. It’ll strengthen your legs and improve your balance.

#blog #changes #improvement #life #personal #zenmischief