Rights groups urge UK PM Starmer to abandon plans for mandatory digital ID

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Why UK Politics Keeps Returning to Digital ID

  • Commenters note that UK politicians of all parties have pushed ID schemes for decades, with shifting justifications (terrorism, welfare fraud, now illegal immigration).
  • Some see it as a “do something” issue that avoids tackling divisive problems like housing, taxation, or wages while signalling toughness on immigration.

Illegal Immigration and “Papers, Please” Concerns

  • Skeptics argue digital ID won’t meaningfully deter illegal immigration: right-to-work and right-to-rent checks already exist, and non-compliant employers/landlords still hire and house undocumented workers.
  • Others counter that a unified, verifiable system could make checks easier and reduce employer risk.
  • Several point out that countries with mandatory ID cards still have illegal immigration, so the claimed link is weak.

Existing IDs and Fragmented Systems

  • UK residents already juggle many identifiers (NI number, NHS number, passport, driving licence, tax IDs, multiple gov logins).
  • Some argue a unified login/ID would improve UX and reduce fraud (e.g. right-to-work checks, inheritance, banking).
  • Others like the current fragmentation because it limits centralised cross-linking of data.

Comparisons to Other Countries

  • Nordic and Estonian-style systems are praised for convenience (online banking, tax, health, notary, signatures), but:
    • Lock-in to Apple/Google ecosystems and bank-controlled IDs is criticised.
    • Cases in Denmark/Sweden show people being locked out due to old phones, lack of local bank accounts, or edge cases (homeless, carers, children, foreigners).
  • Swiss and continental ID cards are cited as proof democracy can coexist with strong ID, though voting and e‑ID design remain contentious.

Civil Liberties, Surveillance, and Online Identity

  • Strong fears in the UK context: existing mass internet-usage logging, arrests for online speech, age-verification laws, and links to firms like Palantir.
  • Critics worry a state digital ID will be tied to internet accounts, enabling pervasive tracking, easier criminalisation of speech, and targeted exclusion from services.
  • Some support binding online identities to real-world IDs to combat crime and foreign influence; opponents see this as sliding toward authoritarianism.

Implementation, Trust, and Smartphone-Only Apps

  • Many objections focus on the UK state’s track record: failed IT megaprojects, outsourcing to large consultancies, poor privacy governance, and mission creep.
  • Concern that the scheme will be phone-app–only, marginalising people without smartphones or those who don’t want to carry one constantly.
  • A common middle view: digital ID is probably inevitable and can bring real convenience, but only acceptable if built with open governance, strong privacy, non-corporate capture, and non-mandatory, non-phone alternatives—conditions many doubt will be met.