Digital Identitly "cards"

This is an idea thats gaining traction both in government and outside of it. I remember the last time identity cards were mooted, some people thought they were a great idea and we should all have them and show them whenever asked for by an official to show that we really are entitled to things like NHS care etc.

For me the same reasons mostly against then still apply, like who has access to this data and when. Should the police be able to access all my data, medical records, banking, phone calls etc because I've been stopped for a minor traffic offence? Should they be able to access them if I'm accused of a more major crime and if yes which crimes?

Should the DWP and HMRC have access to my my digital records, including if I've ever been convicted of a crime?

Is it any of my doctors business what websites I visit?

Will schools have access to a parents digital identity? Will school records end up on a persons digital ID forever more?

WIll we be able to challenge information on it and have incorrect information removed? Think of how a bad credit rating on your house can effect you.

Would having a digital ID mean that we would not have to have other forms of ID, when opening a bank account, buying a house, starting a college course?

How easy would it be for criminals to fake them?

If your identity was stolen, because someone stole your phone what redress would have, like wise if you lost your phone how would you prove who you are so as you can get your ID back?

One of the reasons given for this idea of digital ID is that 'everyone has a phone', well not everyone does, I don't, my Mum dosen't, she can't even use the stupid phone we've got now let alone a smart one. There are still lots of places where theres no or poor signal, what then? If the government were to bring in such a law then should they give everyone a device, such as a phone where they can keep it and show it when asked, will they run courses off line, face to face in the real world for those of us who don't know how to use them, don't have them and don't want them.

What should the penalties be for refusing to carry such ID, or just having lost it or had it stolen or it needs charging and you need to go out etc?

I can see that there would up sides to it too, like doctors and first responders having access to you medical records instantly, especially if you were unconcious. If it meant goodbye to passports then yippee, also if it meant I don't have to scrabble about trying to find enough of the right sort of ID to do something simple like vote or open a bank account. My Mum can't open another bank account with someone she dosen't already bank with as she has no driving licence, never having been a driver and has no current passport because she no longer goes abroad She has no credit record either as she owes nothing, something else that makes banks unable to give her a credit card for even a couple of hundred pounds.

I think over all I just worry about mission creep and safety and if it will do any good, or will it be just another hoop to jump through?

  • I have tried to find help and someone to teach me, but there dosen't seem to be anyone willing or able, they just end up cross and frustrated with me. Or I end up cross and frustrated with them, like when I spent weeks trying to find some help and ended up with two women sat in my kitchen with a lap top showing me two phones I could get in either argos or tesco, the fact that I didn't know how to use a smart phone went totally over thier heads and they couldn't understand the help I wanted.

    It's not that you ofer help, that makes me think you get vexed with me, but that I don't understand what you're trying to say, if I could find a way into it I'd be very happy, but I don't seem to be able to. Also most of what you say and the way you and others try and explain things is way over my head. I think I must have some buttons or something missing because when someone tells me to a particular place and click something, I can't find the thing to be clicked, or if I do the next step isn't there. So I do get frustrated and cross, I actually think some people enjoy me being so useless, it gives them something to feel superior about, that and they laugh and just end up confused, before walking away.

  • Iain, can I ask, why my lack of tech ability vexes you so much? Because you do seem to get very vexed and cross with me about it and I don't know why?

    I'm not vexed so much as I have seen several people with similar situations in my life and have managed to make great progress with them in helping them become comfortable enough with their tech to dispel the distrust they have in it.

    You write about your frustrations with tech and I try to offer advice where I think it relevant.

    My experience has been that it just takes finding the right connection to your way of thinking to be able to provide support in a way that works for you so I guess it is the problem solving aspect of my nature that encourages me to keep offering to help.

    If you would prefer me to stay silent then please be clear and I will respect your needs.

  • I've never used facebook or any of these other social media sites, they know I exist and try and get me to sign up, but I don't. it is frustrating to me, but I think if somethings for me it won't go past me, it maybe that there are less and less things that are for me and more and more that go past me.

    Iain, can I ask, why my lack of tech ability vexes you so much? Because you do seem to get very vexed and cross with me about it and I don't know why?

  • Nobody really seems to engage with the issues as I see them, which is about who has a right to what information?

    My understanding is that we have moved past the point where the right is no longer something we have any real control over.

    The services we use are typically global in nature so the companies running it will find ways to create subsiduaries in countries where our laws don't reach to so they can pretty much do what they want with our data, and most do.

    Even when they openly state they will not take out data, it has been established that in many cases they took it anyway (Facebook is a high profile case here: https://www.dailywire.com/news/privacy-win-facebook-settles-decade-old-90-million-lawsuit-alleging-it-tracked-users-data-without-consent )

    We are past the point where we can trust these companies so for me the only approach is to limit what I make accessible to them. It is the only control I have when I still want to use their services.

    Hence I have different computers for different purposes, multiple phones and even offline systems that never connect to any networks.

    I'm paranoid because I know what some of these companies do (I even helped companies do it in the past) but accept it as part of the world we live in now.

  • I am conflicted. I do not like the idea, but there appears to be so much fraud going on that it might be useful. However, I am mindful that in Europe you’re supposed to have an ID card at all time to prove you have a legal right to be in Europe. Yes, it is very clear that the authorities take no notice of it leading to huge numbers of illegal migrants wandering around Europe. So it depends on whether the authorities would actually use it for the proper purpose.

  • Nobody really seems to engage with the issues as I see them, which is about who has a right to what information?

    People should have voted for Jeremy Corbyn.  Instead they got a succession of Tories followed by a philanderer that has no place in Labour.  Human rights have long evaporated.

    I'm afraid that ship has sailed.  Perhaps people are being philosophical, or they've just been ground down into submission. 

  • I think I'd need to include a copy of my little black book of passwords! I don't know what most of your post was about, dual facet encryption for example, way over my head.

    *************************

    One of the things I've found interesting about this thread, is how people have chosent to engage with it or not. I notice some just give one sentence replies others like Iain choose to focus on my tecnical inabilities. Nobody really seems to engage with the issues as I see them, which is about who has a right to what information? There seems to be a general acceptance that "they" have it already and its something not worth thinking about, let alone fighting for this is how countries sleep walk into fascism

  • Not the mark of bother beast it has to be on hand or forehead, nice to know someone is on my wave length 

  • Where exactly does one keep things that are offsite and yet still safe?

    I keep things at a family members house in a locked box (not 100% safe I know) so that in the event my place burns to the ground or is emptied by thieves then I can get backup copies of important documents and have hard disks containing things like scans of all my photos, my music library in MP3 files, scans of all useful documents, digital versions of my library etc.

    I also keep copies of some essential docs in the cloud - I use a mix of an iCloud account (free) where I have up to 5Gb or OneDrive (I get 100Gb I think from my Microsoft Office subscription) where I have created an encrypted file in which I keep copies of my passport and identity documents, bank details etc - everything I may need in the case of an emergency.

    I also keep a copy of the encryption software there so I can download and install it to open the file, but I use a software that has 2 passwords, each of which opens a different version of the file - a fake one in case I am every forced to give a password and the real one.A very useful feature.

    Those are my belt and braces for this sort of thing. Dual facet encryption gives about as good a protection as I can think of without needing to get really technical on it.

    I just need to remember the passwords which are very long.

  • I know I'm insignificant to banks and many others, I quite like that actually, and I probably will be left further behind than I already am, I don't know how to use the cloud, I'm don't even know what it is, Ijust visualise it as information floating about like steam.

    Where exactly does one keep things that are offsite and yet still safe? I guess I could bury them in a tin down the bottom of the garden and in the future archaeologists will dig them up and wonder what the purpose of this identity hoard was?

  • At the moment the police have to get a warrent to access things like medical records and financial information and information from phones.

    I think you will find that this requirement is routinely disregarded or in the case where they are investigating you, they get the warrant and pull your data with you being none the wiser.

    I had a troublesome run in with the police relating to some work my last employer was doing and they raided my home, seized all my computers / phones etc but at that point they had gathered a huge amount of data and were trying to find something to make sense of it all.

    Because I had taken precautions and had everything suitably encrypted they couldn't find what they wanted (it saved my job too) but the level of info they had on me was scary.

    What happens if your identity proof is stolen or lost, like in a house fire?

    The same thing happens now with the old technology. You need to keep backups of your IDs somewhere safe and offsite it you are sensible.

    If someone steals your phone then there is tech to kill the phone remotely, you get a replacement sim card and restore your phone from cloud backup and you are back in operation in half a day.

    I doubt there will be a one stop solution as different groups rarely speak to one another to organise this, but there is likely to be one that is recognised by the others as a proof to get them to issue their own, subordinate IDs. A bit like a passport lets you open a bank account but you need a pin code and signature to prove you are who you say you are in the branch.

    I don't have any remote banking or anything like that, despite my bank trying to force it on me,

    The harsh reality is that you are a statistically irrelevant minority and they will accept losing your business as a benefit to them. Chances are you will be difficult for them to support and not make them much money from savings and selling products to you, so they are better off without you.

    This doesn't help you but it can be an incentive to learn to adapt or be left behind.

    Just to be clear I'm not having a go, just explaining how I think the banks worked after having worked for them for 2 decades.

  • The Mark of the Beast?

  • I routinely refuse all cookies or only have the bare essentials if I have too.

    I suspect that criminals will find it easier to fake than the rest of us will to be able to get the real thing. Apart from stealing my handbag where would criminals get this information from, I suppose some could be hacked? As you can probably see I don't really understand the why's and wherefores.

    As for the old thing about if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear, is a load of old rubbish, mistakes are made all the time with data, if someone puts the wrong data in then you'll get the wrong data out. Mission creep is one of my main concerns about something like this, all it would take would be for a government to change a law and we could all end up with lots of things to hide. Would you be happy that the police, or a bank could find out you're ASC? Would you be treated differently? We know you shouldn't, but people are, for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with why they're interacting with the authorities.

    I suspect that there will much more about this in the coming months.

  • The sample size is very small.  I'm sure you agree (when compared to the voting age population)

    Of course, most pollsters take a small sample - particularly on non-election matters.  This would be about standard.  That wasn't my point, but I accept the size isn't everything remark (was that banter, Bunny?  I'm attempting some light humour)  

    I don't dispute there are worse pollsters.  I didn't say there weren't.  They've been around a long while now.

    You don't need to tell me about them, I did an in-depth investigation into them, their funding, and their ownership a few years back.  You'll probably know that they were (joint-) founded by a former Tory Chancellor too, and its been suggested by many that their motivations might not always be pure.

    Again, you could argue that other pollsters aren't exactly squeaky clean either. 

    I am not trying to justify, but I don't really want another never-ending argument or similar.  I am sure neither of us do really, so drawing a line might be best. 

    Not for the first time, I'd point out that I am not picking an argument with you just because I think or feel differently.  There have been times (as you will recall) that I've expressed opinions and you've come in with a different perspective.  I guess it cuts both ways, so perhaps there's no need to misinterpret anything as picking a quarrel. 

    In the spirit of the time of year, I'd wish you a Happy Easter, and nice to see you posting more now the spam issue has been (hopefully) sorted out.


  • Yes, I had thought that government sharing happened but I didn’t have the information to be able to be specific and reference my sources, and I didn’t have the desire to search on all the government and interested party sites to find out. 

    I agree cautiousness would be prudent in the push for ID cards.  The Labour Government has already shown that morality is not a consideration when attempting to placate other views.

    Personally, I don’t have a need for a digital ID, but perhaps some people who don’t drive or travel might find a digital ID handy. Would it be useful for the government? Depends on what they would find useful and if that would be for the good or the detriment of society.

  • I cannot believe you are re-posting their own blurb telling us how good they are.  

    Given that you expressed a concern about the sample size, I shared what YouGov say about sampling - along with a link to their methodology page - so that others can read more about their approach, if they wish to.

    (Sample) size, as they say, isn't everything.

    I believe they're pretty good at what they do - and wouldn't still be in business otherwise.

    Here are some third-party observations:

    "In February 2024, FiveThirtyEight ranked YouGov as fourth out of more than 300 pollsters in its ratings, based on analysis of 624 YouGov polls.

    YouGov's polling results have been found to be notably more accurate than those of other online pollsters relying on nonprobability sampling instead of random sampling. The New York Times has attributed YouGov's performance to its curation of its respondent panel and a sophisticated sampling process from that panel."

    Wikipedia

    It feels to me like you're trying to pick an argument with me. I'm not sure why, and would prefer that we leave this matter here.

  • Just because a private polling organisation tells us they are doing very well at their job, it doesn't necessarily make it so - they are hardly likely to tell us they are doing poorly. 

    I cannot believe you are re-posting their own blurb telling us how good they are.  

    I'm trying to recall which pollster told us we'd be leaving the EU...   That's right, none of them. 


    By the way, I used to take part in YouGov surveys & I know well how they 'invite the right people'

  • This polling data may indicate a majority in favour of ID cards, but it is important to note that YouGov's polling sample is under 2,000 each time.  Hardly a massive sample. 

    "Active sampling ensures that the right people are invited in the right proportions. In combination with our statistical weighting, this ensures that our results are representative of the country as a whole."

    https://yougov.co.uk/about/panel-methodology

  • Briefly.

    Government Departments already share personal information. 

    For example, the DWP shares information with the Ministry of Justice & the Inland Revenue, amongst others.  They don't require warrants to do so. 

    The Police cannot compel and individual to share personal data without a warrant, but they wont have any difficulty in getting same data from a Government Department under UK GDPR.  If the Government has your info, the Police can get it, without your say-so.

    This polling data may indicate a majority in favour of ID cards, but it is important to note that YouGov's polling sample is under 2,000 each time.  Hardly a massive sample. 

    I'd be a touch wary as to who is pushing the ID cards & the reasons for it - This seems another appeasement in the lurch to the right, and a politicians way to say they are doing something about illegal immigrants, and illegal working in the UK. 

    Is there a need, or does it just sound good to a particular audience? 

  • I don’t have full information on who is holding exactly what and I don’t have the answers to all your questions. 

    Government departments such as the DVLA, Passport Office, Inland Revenue, HMRC, Prison Service and Social Security Agency, Councils, Hospital and Social Care Trusts, and Electoral Offices have personal information such as date and place of birth, address, salary, driving offences, criminal record, hospital records. I don’t know the procedure involved to allow sharing of the information but adding a department for issuing IDs is unlikely to make a difference to individual security as it won’t contain anything different to the information available to the other government departments.

    Banks hold information that is available through forms of ID produced when opening an account. Different banks already share this information between them and have a duty to report suspicious activity, along with all known details, to government fraud departments of HMRC.

    I don’t know what happens to your identity is stolen but as I said in my previous post, it is already happening. I have seen reports on the news and on consumer programmes about ID fraud, and I believe it is fixable, albeit with much hassle.

    If digital ID cards were issued, the government is suggesting you would be able to control the information that you allow other people to have. You could just show for instance, that you are over 18 years old, rather than giving your date of birth.

    Section 6.2 of the public dialogue link lists some of your concerns. 

    www.gov.uk/.../public-dialogue-on-trust-in-digital-identity-services-a-findings-report

    Regarding the poll, yes it is only one poll, but it looks like 59% of people polled strongly support or tend to support a system of national identity cards. That is a majority, and even if the 19% of ‘don’t knows’ were to oppose or strongly oppose the introduction, it would remain a majority. Government polls can change, but it shows that at the point of information gathering, a majority was in favour of ID cards. They would of course be digital as are current forms of ID in the form of driving licences and passports.

1 2