Digital Identitly "cards"

I don’t think having digital identity cards would make a significant difference to the concerns you list as the government, police and customs have access to the information anyway. Criminals already have a choice of ID to fake in the form of passports, National Insurance identity cards, driving licences and so on. 

The news often has reports of criminals stealing identities and I expect it would be no different with ID cards. 

i don’t particularly like the way things are going either, but I suspect we will have to go along with it, even if we don’t agree with it. I would like to know if polling has shown clear majority opinion one way or another.

In many European countries, it has been the norm for years to carry ID cards.

If it becomes law, you could avoid having to carry an ID card by getting a QR code tattooed on your wrist, alternatively a scannable implant would be discreet LOL.

How is the information 'already out there'? At the moment the police have to get a warrent to access things like medical records and financial information and information from phones. I don't like the idea of a more detailed digital strip search because I have a broken indicator I didn't know about. I don't have any remote banking or anything like that, despite my bank trying to force it on me, I only gave them my mobile number because I had to for OTP's.

I'm quite happy with the idea that if I was found unconcious in the street that ambulance staff could access my records, providing my phone or whatever hadn't already been stolen. What would happen if one's ID was stolen? Would you still get NHS treatement, would you be billed until you could provide a replacement ID?

My mum for example only has an email address and has bought a couple of things online, that's the extent of her digital footprint, how would people like her who can't really use a simple dumb phone cope with having to show a digital ID?

Bunny, thats one poll and it hardly shows a majority in favour, it shows a majority who are not sure, even when they think the idea is good.

Everone seems to be saying the believe it's inevitable, and it probably is, but no one has attempted to answer my questions about who has access to what and when?

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

Will it be a one stop thing that holds all your information, driving licence, passport, etc and would it mean that I didn't have to have any of the others?

Will showing it become another hoop to jump through when wanting to do something like open a new bank account with us still having to show other proofs of identity and what would they be?

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.

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.

overwhelmed & underwhelmed ( O & U ) said:

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'

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'

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.

overwhelmed & underwhelmed ( O & U ) said:

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.