Ready or informed or not, here comes UK’s national digital ID debate

The UK’s mandatory digital ID scheme is facing criticism from nearly all observers, but for reasons that range from the pragmatic to the fanciful. A more informed debate is needed, and whether it will be held or not, some kind of public dialogue appears to be underway.

Liz Kendall told Parliament during the first debates on the system that some pushing back on the proposal have been engaging in “scaremongering” and spreading “misinformation,” PoliticsHome reports.

She handled questions from the floor abut the system’s cost, whether it is a step towards mass surveillance and how to assure people that the scheme is not being forced on them.

The report notes that a poll from More in Common suggests that support fell to a net negative 14 percent in a poll following Starmer’s announcement.

Times Literary Supplement Editor Martin Ives, in an opinion piece for Bloomberg, addresses the irony of so many people in the world’s second-most surveilled country, by camera count, believing it must avoid excessive state control by rejecting measures in place in many democratic countries.

“Putting aside the chaotic presentation, Starmer needs to answer a few simple questions as cogently and honestly as possible. First, how much will a digital ID system cost? (The UK government has a poor record on digital innovation, so it might also be reassuring to know that Whitehall proposes to buy off-the-peg rather than building from scratch.) Second, precisely which functions will be voluntary versus compulsory? Finally, how secure will the system be?”

Media campaigns begin in earnest

The Tony Blair Institute’s Ryan Wain told Times Radio Politics that the policy is good, but the communication, or lack of it, has fostered opposition.

“I do think we have to think a little bit differently about how we communicate and discuss policy.”

Wain attributes the opposition largely to “cranks and conspiracy theorists” who have stepped into an informational “vacuum.”

He referred to the increased transparency the Estonia system gives people over who has looked up data about them, and suggested the notion of digital identity will win out in an environment in which its benefits and risks are honestly and thoroughly discussed.

A series of audio clips collected by Times Radio from people described as wavering Labour voters shows objections stemming from associations between digital ID and China’s authoritarian government, belief that people already have enough ID credentials, and that digital identities will be forged and faked just like any other credentials.

One point that Wain makes which has made little headway in the UK’s public debate is that if someone is able to pass or avoid a Right to Work check, they could still be prevented by digital ID from carrying out other kinds of interactions common to illegal migrants, such as remittances.

Iain Corby of the Age Verification Provider’s Association (AVPA) suggested in an interview with GB News that The Data (Use and Access) Bill already provides a way to meet the government’s goals without “a multi-billion-pound program.” He also noted that government IT programs tend to overshoot their cost and time targets.

“The key thing here is that you get the choice as to which provider you go to. And you can choose one that you trust. And I think the biggest people are going to have with this, certainly the people I’ve talked to in the digital identity community are worried about, it’s surveillance.”

Corby referred to Apple taking the government to court to block its back-door access to encrypted data, and the risk that if the government builds surveillance capabilities into its digital ID system, there will be no equivalent third party to take it to court.

Dan Johnson of AVPA member Luciditi also centered trust while telling GB News in an interview that he doesn’t think the proposal will even be implemented.

A better idea would be to follow through the on the DAU and deliver the option for people to use self-sovereign identity (SSI), Johnson says.

The discussion turned to the lack of information about the policy in the runup to its introduction, and by extension the weak (or absent) democratic mandate for such a change. The idea that the digital ID will be mandatory for 13 year-olds (at least those who have jobs) continues to draw attention as evidence of possible mission creep.

Implementing the digital identity plan will require addressing specific details, which is where a simple-sounding policy ideas meet complex reality, Orchestrating Identity Chief Trust Officer David Rennie writes for TechUK.

The piece is one in a series of perspectives from the industry gathered by TechUK on the topic.

Select ID Marketing Development Director Gareth Narinesingh sets out a long-term vision for greater trust and economic growth through digital identity. That will take a trustworthy framework backed by legislation, orchestration that deals with complexity, data minimization to protect privacy, interoperability through OpenID Connect, and a clear articulation of the social benefits of digital ID, he writes.

CFIT Director of Coalitions and Research Ieon Ifayemi notes the potential for the economy from innovations like digital identity-backed open banking and digital company ID.

Yoti CEO Robin Tombs makes the case that not only are digital IDs already in use and working well, but the DIATF, which enables their use, sets a path for trust very different from whatever the UK government is currently doing.

Article Topics

AVPA  |  digital government  |  digital ID  |  digital identity  |  Luciditi  |  Orchestrating Identity  |  Select ID  |  UK  |  UK digital ID  |  Yoti