Digital ID: yes or no?

[Psamathe]

Well, that's not what Starmer said, and that I've quoted.

Something like this with such civil liberties impacts should have been in an election manifesto.

 

[briantrumpet]

Something like this with such civil liberties impacts should have been in an election manifesto.

I'll happily stand corrected if you can find quotes where it was stated that this was limited to the scope you say it was.

 

[PurplePenguin]

Looks very much like Labour campaigned on the idea the Tories were abhorrent for their Rwanda plan and that Labour would sort it out by being competent. They've now discovered it is harder than they thought and think that stopping people working illegally will help. They've then foolishly decided that digital IDs will do this without thinking it through.

Separately, I'm not really sure why a government so keen to reduce asylum seekers in hotels got rid of the Bibby Stockholm.

 

[Pross]

Looks very much like Labour campaigned on the idea the Tories were abhorrent for their Rwanda plan and that Labour would sort it out by being competent. They've now discovered it is harder than they thought and think that stopping people working illegally will help. They've then foolishly decided that digital IDs will do this without thinking it through.

Separately, I'm not really sure why a government so keen to reduce asylum seekers in hotels got rid of the Bibby Stockholm.

Bibby Stockholm actually felt like a reasonably practical solution albeit possibly not very well executed.

I've changed my vote on this, I still have no objection in principle to compulsory ID cards but if even the messaging is this bad I have no confidence it would be delivered in a competent and secure manner.

 

[First Aspect]

Bibby Stockholm was a floating ghetto. That's why they got rid of it.

 

[briantrumpet]

This is a good piece on what Starmer's not learnt from the EU experience of trying to introduce a digital ID wallet

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/...igital-id-scheme-eu-mistakes-identity-wallet/

Rather than a mandatory universal ID, the UK should follow an Australian model and begin with specific services where digital credentials offer clear citizen benefits. SOTERIA found higher acceptance for e-health applications in Spain, suggesting that practical benefits in trusted domains can build acceptance.

It should also implement selective disclosure, decentralised storage and genuine user control over data sharing. The EU’s eIDAS 2.0 Regulation mandates such features for the European Digital Identity Wallet, requiring interoperable digital wallets that support selective disclosure and user control by 2026.

The political decision to frame the UK’s digital ID primarily as an immigration control measure has fundamentally compromised public trust. Identity infrastructure should be built to serve citizens, not to police them.

 

[PurplePenguin]

This is a good piece on what Starmer's not learnt from the EU experience of trying to introduce a digital ID wallet

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/...igital-id-scheme-eu-mistakes-identity-wallet/

That's arguing for better marketing of the product. It's not really making a better product.

 

[briantrumpet]

That's arguing for better marketing of the product. It's not really making a better product.

A bit of both, but it highlights how rubbish Starmer is at launching anything: you get the product/policy right first, then market it in a way that stresses the benefits (real or imagined) to the most number of people.

Instead of which it seems to be only a half-thought-through product, and was marketed as a knee-jerk impractical solution to the Reform agenda of small boats.

 

[Psamathe]

That's arguing for better marketing of the product. It's not really making a better product.

A bit of both, but it highlights how rubbish Starmer is at launching anything: you get the product/policy right first, then market it in a way that stresses the benefits (real or imagined) to the most number of people.

Instead of which it seems to be only a half-thought-through product, and was marketed as a knee-jerk impractical solution to the Reform agenda of small boats.

I see it as highlighting very different systems. The EU model is based around more decentralised model with more user control whereas the UK/Starmer system is centralised and authoritarian (mandatory. And that difference is significant when it comes to security and tracking eg when the user has control of the data they can decline use of elements thereby preventing tracking whereas a centralised mandatory system by implication includes tracking.

But UK politicians have never been prone to listening to others other than when that confirms their preconceptions. Starmer really doesn't seem interested in anything other than having some sort of line to spin about addressing what they incorrectly keep calling "illegal immigration" - which is not going to work and next election will at best be far to early to have had any effect.