Keir Starmer has announced plans for a digital ID system, which will become mandatory as a means of proving the right to work in the UK.
From concerns around civil liberties and cybersecurity to a helpful system to streamline services in line with other European countries’ existing ID schemes, eight people share their views.
‘A danger of the system evolving into mass surveillance’
This issue was not given to the electorate in the mandate and is being addressed in a parliamentary recess. It does not sit well with me. I did not vote for this. Countries such as France already operate with digital identification systems, yet still face challenges with irregular or unauthorised crossings. Introducing a digital ID does not in itself close borders or prevent determined illegal entry. There is a danger of such a system evolving into a form of mass surveillance or being misused for state control. The requirement for everyone to register with a state-controlled digital identity raises serious questions over data security, privacy and oversight.
Rory, engineering service planner, London
‘It allows streamlined access to services’
Most European nations have a similar scheme in place – it allows streamlined access to services and is universally accepted by the population and businesses alike. We already have “gifted” our personal information to both private and publicly owned companies – extending this from the NHS and HMRC apps can only be a good thing. The personal details held by private companies are more easily hacked than our government-held data, and yet we seem so happy to share it.
Paul, GP, Hampshire
‘A hacker’s dream’
Absolutely terrible idea. Holding all your information in one place is a hacker’s dream. We already have countless ways we can provide our identity – passports, driving licences and so on. There is absolutely no need for this, and it’s just so the government can try to gain control over illegal working in this country. It makes me absolutely livid that they expect us to put our data at risk to try to control an issue that they are unable to solve. I will absolutely not be signing up to this.
Anna Best, IT consultant, Oxford
‘I hope it paves the way for something bigger’
I hope it paves the way for something bigger. I’m not really bothered by all the “illegal” immigration stuff, but when my mother lost capacity due to illness earlier this year, I spent so much time trying to prove who I was, and who she was, to doctors, utility providers, the DWP and on and on and on. It was a nightmare. The lack of joined-up records across service providers is a nightmare to navigate. I hope digital IDs will be a step in addressing this. To me, this is worth the potential privacy downsides which everyone seems to be preoccupied with. Sometimes, we find ourselves relying on the state in ways we didn’t expect, and in those moments, ensuring the state has up-to-date information on us is maybe no bad thing.
Thomas, 30, London
‘We are being forced to own a smartphone’
Yet more things I will be frozen out of, or made very hard, through my choice to not have a smartphone for my wellbeing. We are being forced to own a smartphone in order to be able to engage in society and it is not OK. The smartphone and constant online engagement is deeply responsible for poor mental health in many of us, and the government keeps making it harder and harder to exist without one. Even doctors’ surgeries assume you have one and send links for you to follow to your phone – ones you obviously cannot follow on a brick phone. What’s wrong with showing a passport?
Eve, 38, self-employed, Glossop
‘I have no confidence in the government’s ability to resist American tech giants’
As a professional software developer, I put the odds that the UK government will be able to pull off this enormous centralised IT scheme without scandal at about 0%. I have no confidence in the current government’s ability to resist the honeyed words of American tech giants. When it comes to databases, I can only think of a few players big enough to do that for a whole country in a hurry … I don’t trust the UK government to make a good decision here if … these companies offer to “help” with this scheme, despite the enormous problems that would pose for digital sovereignty and data protection. Furthermore, if it’s called “Brit card” then half of Northern Ireland and a third of Scotland will hate it passionately.
Alexander, 36, software developer, from Scotland, now living in Denmark
‘The introduction of the ID scheme is a gimmick’
I am from Mexico and moved to the UK 10 years ago as a student. The introduction of the ID scheme is nothing more than a gimmick aimed at those unfamiliar with the existing process of proving your right to work, live or rent. People moving to the UK already have to provide evidence through an e-visa or a physical BRP [biometric residence permit] card, and both employers and estate agents are legally required to check these documents and carry out verification. My concern is that this will create an unnecessary extra step for those who already have to provide this type of evidence.
Dani, 35, from Mexico, now living in Exeter
‘I have an ID card in France – I find it practical’
As a citizen of France as well as the UK I am required to have an ID card in France but not in the UK. My French card, the size of a credit card, has my photo and a chip which records my personal data including my fingerprints. It acts as a passport within the Shengen area. It has been used when I needed to rent, for work etc, and I find it useful and practical, given that if I want to, say, rent a property, I have to give information. It makes sense for me that this is included on my ID card. I wholeheartedly support the introduction of such cards in the UK. So I have no concerns whatsoever, as long as the system is not privatised.
Neil Booker, 70, retired, lives in France
