> It has always received weirdly vitriolic push back.

Because, as the Home Secretary herself observed, it would fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and the state.

> What really is the Government going to do with a digital ID service that they can't do already?

This gives the impression of having done no research into a topic of which you now opine opposition to be "weirdly vitriolic". We live in an age of search engines and GPTs, free encyclopaedias and entire lecture series online, and even libraries are still open and free, but you've done nothing to get past the very first thoughts you've had on the subject.

Was that weirdly vitriolic, or someone pointing out that an argument to undermine everyone's rights should have some effort behind it?

I dunno man, your reply doesn't sound _kind_. Maybe you could try to explain the point you're defending rather than ad hominem and overextrapolate a perceived insult. I genuinely want to learn and it's frustrating that your comment does not do that.

Calling their objections “weirdly vitriolic” belies both a complaint about “kindness”, and shows an explicit desire to not learn a single thing. Perhaps, if you have genuine curiosity in the future, you should be thoughtful about the questions you ask, and the ad hominem attacks you make in the asking, rather than whining after the fact because people didn’t excuse your lack of tactful interaction sufficiently?

Or just complain about “kindness” more - it’s easier to accuse others of being mean than to look in a mirror, I suppose.

The person to whom you are replying is not the person who said the "weirdly vitriolic" remark. You're chastising someone who didn't do the thing you are (rightly) opposing.

Ahh, fair enough, I misread/failed to read the username. Thank you for pointing that out!

If what you say were to be true then an accusation of ad hominem would itself be ad hominem.

I addressed their unkind and ad hominem argument. If you think me unkind then I will shrug and say, in hacker parlance, they should RTFM. They have not put in the slightest work before opining and criticising, and on something as important as this?

May they receive such weird vitriol until they learn to at least Google first. Doesn't it automatically run a GPT for you now? They, and surely the people around them, will thank me for instilling such basic discipline.

Can anyone explain the history of "self ID" rules and laws in the UK? It seems like you do not have to prove your ID to the police. It is the reverse. As an outsider, I don't understand it.

The fundamental proposition on which all of English culture flows from is that of innocence. For example, in court, you do not have to prove your innocence because you are presumed innocent.

In the case of ID cards and the like, the state does not rule over the populace, it rules on behalf of the populace. I am innocent and they work for me. Hence, I do not have to prove to some random government agent who I am unless it is relevant to the task they perform, e.g.

- the police have a reasonable and justifiable suspicion that I am engaged in criminal activity - an immigration officer may only ask for my details when I am crossing a border or, again, have some reasonable and justifiable suspicion that I am in need of deportation etc. - Or perhaps I just need some documents from my local municipal office, and they rightly ask who I am and to prove it before giving out my private info.

Me going about my business is no business of the government's until I start abusing the rules.

The opposite view is that:

- I am ruled over - Any agent of the government can question me and prevent me from going about my business

Of course, in practice, the application of such liberal principles like not requiring ID to go about my day are often not done well, but to change the principle is to change the entire character of the most fundamental aspects of Englishness. You'll note, much of the continent lurches between different forms of collectivist oppressive government whereas, until of late, the UK has not. This is because of the lack of this fundamental principle there, I am sure of that, and those calling for these kind of ID laws, digital or otherwise, are not to be entertained.

The most interesting case will be the USA, where they still care about the principles of English liberty, far more than the English do.

This theory mixes up the distinct concepts of the government, as a trusted entity (where applicable), issuing identity document for the use of its citizens (including in person-to-person or person-to-private-company scenarios), and that of the government requiring its citizens to identify themselves to it on demand.

Sure, its slightly harder to have a government issue credentials to everybody and not have them abuse the possibilities that come with it, but if a society can pull it of, there are vast benefits in many areas of life.

On top of that, the flip side of people regularly not carrying any identification documents seems to be a police force much more eager to arrest people on the spot to figure out their identity. (Presented as an observation without value judgement: This way of doing things does lower the likelihood of the police arresting somebody because of not carrying identification.)

> This theory mixes up the distinct concepts of the government, as a trusted entity (where applicable), issuing identity document for the use of its citizens (including in person-to-person or person-to-private-company scenarios), and that of the government requiring its citizens to identify themselves to it on demand.

I don't agree that there is any such mix up, you'd need to point to the actual mix up.

> Sure, its slightly harder to have a government issue credentials to everybody and not have them abuse the possibilities that come with it, but if a society can pull it of, there are vast benefits in many areas of life.

There are lots of things that may benefit the group at the expense of individuals, but that is exactly why any group that values individual liberty should be opposed to it.

> On top of that, the flip side of people regularly not carrying any identification documents seems to be a police force much more eager to arrest people on the spot to figure out their identity.

The police in the UK aren't allowed to arrest people simply for not providing ID, and they are sued and lose when they do. I used to enjoy watching the Crimebodge account on Youtube where there are plenty of such scenarios. It's especially fun watching teenagers who know the law frustrate authoritarian rozzers.

So no, the way to lower the risk of the police arresting people for not having ID is to make not having ID a normal thing and increase the rights the individual has against persecution by the police.

Successive governments have been determined to change this.

A good current example is the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill which very much is based on the idea that the state, rather than parents, is primarily responsible for children. The Online Safety Act reflects much the same thinking.

I think there has been a cultural change. Both from the state, and from people who expect to be told what to do to a greater extent than the past.

I agree, and it's sad to see. I will do all I can to challenge it.

Oh, bro, you're practically living in 1689

That's the dream.

    > The fundamental proposition on which all of English culture flows from is that of innocence.

Is this not true in all highly advanced democracies?

One thing I have found true (and somewhat different from other countries), when UK folks talk about how they view the police, it is generally beneficial. (Don't throw your tomatoes at me just yet!) Versus other countries, the police are viewed as more neutral or negative (especially the US). I always thought the idea of having no regular police carrying guns is a pretty brave policy in the 21st century. In many ways, imperfect policy, but it works well, and (appears) to reduce police violence against the public. On a more personal note, I also find the UK police are incredibly restrained during heated protests. Imperfect, yes, but they make a real effort. As an outsider, when I watch a short YouTube clip of a heated protest in the UK, and the police are doing their best to keep cool and not antogise the crowds. (I promise: I'm not here to shill for UK police; I'm sure they do some bad stuff too.) The best phrase that I ever heard from a British person to describe UK police: "They police by consent (of the people)." It is a powerful phrase and idea.

> > The fundamental proposition on which all of English culture flows from is that of innocence.

> Is this not true in all highly advanced democracies?

Been to Japan?

Basically there is no universal ID system. You are not required to have a passport or driving licence, which are the usual IDs. There is an optional kind of ID you can use to prove your age if you don't or can't have those. Even if you do have one of these, you don't have to show it to the police if they stop you. The police can ask your name, but unless the police has "reasonable grounds" to search you, you can just walk away.

This is at odds to much of the EU where carrying ID is normal and you can be fined for not having it on you in public.

Proving your identity to a company usually involves a copy of passport and a recent utility bill. Sometimes you need to get a "professional" (doctor, lawyer) to write "I certify this is a valid copy" on it. Financial systems often use your NI number (think SSN) as the ID factor for things like KYC, the NHS uses a separate number. There are several fairly mysterious companies that provide this service to companies who need to know like solicitors (you upload the photos, they authenticte it "somehow", hopefully they look after it, presumably they can be audited I turn out to be a money launderer using a fake document). Getting a passport is a bit of a performance as you have to bootstrap the trust chain by getting someone you know to submit their documents and vouch for your photos.

It also means that, to use a hot-button subject recently, the police have limited practical ways to prove a right to work, unless they have strong intelligence that a particular place is using illegal labour and do a raid. The current tactic seems to be arresting people for illegal e-bikes, where they have reasonable grounds for an arrest and can then get the name and do the immigration checks at that point.

This is a great post. I learned a lot. Thank you.

I remember once seeing the UK passport application. It struck me as having utterly byzantine requirements. When I read your post and think about it again, the lack of a universal ID could make it very tricky to get a passport, which is ultimately a national/universal ID.

> What really is the Government going to do with a digital ID service that they can't do already?

In 20 years, the UK suffers a terrorist attack just before an election, and then elects a ultra right wing government on a platform of "remigrating foreigners." You're a British born citizen but your mom fled from Iran in the 80s and immigrated to the UK.

If you don't have digital ID, and the government decides to "remigrate all Iranians," they have to collect information from several different government groups, e.g. maybe your mom got a passport in which case one government agency may just know she's a non-native British citizen but nothing more. Maybe your immigration agency stands up to the government and engages in legal battles to prevent turning over immigration information.

However if there's a digital ID system that lets the government instantly know everything about a person, you lose the protection of friction.

I believe this is one of the fundamental premises of representative liberal democracy, and one of its most redeeming features: balance of power is spread not just between branches of government, but through ministries/departments/agencies, which makes it much harder for a despot to do despotism.

Being able to break the law is never a good thing. Immigration agencies can still fight whatever after people have been kicked out as has been decided. Government inefficiency should never be celebrated.

> Immigration agencies can still fight whatever after people have been kicked out as has been decided.

Given that dragnet operations result in all sorts of random people being deported, including citizens, and given that sometimes these people are deported to countries where they face violence or death, you are arguing for state-sponsored violence without due process. Other than people immigrating, what other circumstances do you feel justify the elimination of due process?

People should not be hiding in our country to escape death. If someone was willing to break the law that heavily, they should be deported and faced judgements as soon as possible as those are the people we should be removing from society as fast as possible.

> People should not be hiding in our country to escape death.

You're presuming people that face death in other countries do so because they're criminals or something? Sometimes it's because they're the wrong religion or wrong political ideology. I really can't understand your psychopathy here.

I take quite seriously our American value of "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free." It's what made America the land of opportunity. For your country as well I recommend promoting this value, it's the ethically good position.

> Being able to break the law is never a good thing.

Suppose there is a law against being Jewish.

Then I suggest Jewish people not visit the country. Trying to still visit despite being banned will not leed to a good outcome.

They live there and it's also illegal for them to try to leave.

Are you being purposefully obtuse? This is clearly a reference to early Nazi Germany, when being Jewish was made slowly illegal over time, and many Jewish Germans lived in, well, Germany of course!

Also in what world would the answer to "making an ethnicity illegal" be "don't visit that country" instead of "that country has an unethical law and should change it?"

I don’t think there is much “protection of friction”. A despot may not bother checking citizenship. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_and_deportation_of_A... says:

“ICE was confirmed by independent review and U.S. judges to have violated laws including the Immigration Act of 1990 by interrogating and detaining people without warrants or review of their citizenship status”

> However if there's a digital ID system that lets the government instantly know everything about a person, you lose the protection of friction.

"Digital ID" doesn't necessitate that all data is collected into one gigantic store with centralised access. Just that you can use the same attestation of identity to access the various systems. And you can also grant others access to a limited subset of the data.

If the government wanted to they could already have set up some direct access from (say) the passport office to HMRC. It's all digital anyway, backwards as the UK government can be, they're not sending people to pore over paper ledgers in person like in The Jackal.

Some of the system already works like this anyway with the share codes for permission to work for foreigners and proving your driving licence.

Theoretically you would also be able to have an audit log of who asked for attestation for access to which system using that ID. Which you currently don't have when everyone is doing it by passport scans, NI numbers given over the phone and so on.

What it does allow is a creeping over-attestation where you need to use the ID to do things that were previously anonymous or at least potentially anonymous. But since you currently need to use a driving license or selfie to look at boobies, that's already a thing.

I broadly agree on the theory of administrative friction increasing the resiliency of societies against non-democratic government action, but I wonder if that ship hasn't sailed with the digitziation of most governments: All that data is already present in some database, public or private (with the government able to coerce access in many cases).

So I get the historical aversion to IDs as the stepping stone of governments to gaining access to potentially democracy-subverting informational hazmat, but these days, I feel like the downsides of not having a ubiquitous and privacy-preserving ID scheme vastly outweigh the little bit of extra friction of it will ever add.