this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2025

20 points (95.5% liked)

UK Politics

4332 readers

142 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

flamingos@feddit.uk

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

Starmer's Digital ID plans are too toxic even for Oswald Mosley's grandson and Palantir (www.thecanary.co)

submitted 1 week ago by RobotToaster@mander.xyz to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] FishFace@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't know why Oswald Mosley's relation is getting special attention here - am I expected to understand that his politics are the same as his grandfather's? (Only the one grandfather, presumably, or maybe his other three grandparents had exactly identical political beliefs? Seems unlikely though.)

Pathetic attempt at journalism though - "this bastard hate this thing so you should too!" is an interesting take.

These digital ID plans are uncontroversial in other countries. It's a good example of where there's actually an obvious way to improve productivity because you wouldn't need every single service that needs to do identity checks to support our complicated mess.

The one and only problem - and it is is a significant one - is the government's record on IT and IT security.

[–] IcyToes@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I don't think the benefits you suspect will be realised by this.

You also suggested productivity as a benefit. That's basically doing the same thing while hiring less people. Firstly, only useful for CEOs and not great for equality, secondly, what actual gains are even going to be from this? You can get on NHS or government stuff without a digital ID. There is no demonstrable way this will make the process any better. It'll only make it easier for the gov to survey it's population, and that's not something to celebrate.

Gun ownership isn't controversial in the US. It is unthinkable in the UK. Acceptance in one place does not justify acceptability here. I'd rather countries that give zero fucks about privacy aren't used to steamroll our rights here.

[–] FishFace@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You also suggested productivity as a benefit. That’s basically doing the same thing while hiring less people. Firstly, only useful for CEOs

Productivity increase is the basis for all improvements in standards of life. Industrialisation was not "only useful for CEOs"; it brought millions out of poverty by lowering the amount of labour required to produce food and other basic necessities to the point where the poorest in society could still afford them. Doing the same thing while hiring fewer people means those people can do something else.

Commitment to equality is needed to ensure the benefits of productivity increases aren't only reaped by those already wealthy, but you will notice that neither China nor Russia decided that they'd better not industrialise so as to avoid the wealthy getting all the benefit; they recognised that the benefit could ideally be shared amongst the population.

secondly, what actual gains are even going to be from this? You can get on NHS or government stuff without a digital ID. There is no demonstrable way this will make the process any better.

You don't see the advantage in having a single thing which allows you, without filling in any ID forms or uploading/sending off any documents, to:

Register for a GP
Renew a passport
Apply for a driving license
Open a bank account

And besides that would open the way to having a uniform way to prove your age to buy alcohol and otherwise prove your identity in person. That is before you get to any of the advantages that do exist but which come from the requirement to have ID, such as having a way of reliably identifying people the police suspect of a crime. It's not the 18th century any more, and the power to require someone to tell you their name and address has the obvious problem that they can lie.

Maybe you haven't done any of these things recently, but filling out 3 years of address history and uploading 2 forms of ID for each new account for something with real-world significance gets old quickly. If you're older than 40 you might not have to do it much any more.

Gun ownership isn’t controversial in the US. It is unthinkable in the UK.

So this should inspire is to look to the US to see what the effects of gun ownership might be, rather than dogmatically sticking to our opposition to it. Of course, what we see there is mass shooting after mass shooting so we'd quite sensibly go "no thank you."

What do we see all over Western and Northern Europe? Are the population being ground under the bootheel of state surveillance made so much more effective by convenient and mandatory identification? No. But their health systems, government, banking systems and police don't have to spend nearly so much time and effort identifying people, because there's a uniform way of doing it.

[–] fakeman_pretendname@feddit.uk 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

I admire your optimism.

The things listed as advantages are what, 10 times in your entire life? I had no valid photo ID for over a decade. It was a hassle... maybe twice. For many things, who I am shouldn't even matter - or at least my face shouldn't. Of course, now you're not allowed to vote any more unless you bring an approved ID... so there is that.

On the other hand, what are some potential negative points of the enforced IDs?

When you get mugged, they can also steal your name, address and identity, then quickly gain access to your bank account and everything else in your life.
Attending a peace or environmental protest? Too bad, your ID has been disabled remotely by the police. Now you can't buy anything or board public transport.
Have you said something online that the government doesn't like? Because your ID is linked to every website now, they know you said it. You're about to have your bank account disabled.
Didn't notice that tiny bit of plastic on the ID scanner? Too bad - now your ID has been cloned. Now they're taking out loans in your name. Now the loan sharks are after you.
Oh! Looks like someone's got into the badly secured ID database again. There's all your details being sold on to criminals. Again. Third time this month.
The Internet's down and the ID scanners aren't working. Sorry, nobody can buy anything or go anywhere.
Your abusive partner has confiscated your ID. You'll get arrested if you go out without your ID.
Your terrifyingly dangerous ex is stalking you. Thanks to a poorly secured database, and scanning IDs in every shop, bus and train, they now know exactly where you are. They are coming for you.
The ID now has to use a particular piece of software attached to your mobile phone at all times. It's only compatible with the newest of phones. Your phone is older, and you can't afford to replace it for a few years. You are a criminal now.

I know some of these are slightly exaggerated overreaction, but I'm sure you get the point - however unlikely these exact situations are, there are similar ones which are very likely, in a few years. Maybe not the current government, but what do you think the Tories or UKIP would do with that power? These are just going to be used to oppress and destroy the lives of the poor, frightened and vulnerable.

Nobody asked for this. It wasn't in the election promises, it wasn't in the manifesto. Nobody voted for this. Nobody asked for this and nobody wants it. There's no mandate for it.

[–] Zorro@mander.xyz 3 points 6 days ago

Thank you for spelling out exactly how I also feel about keir stasi's digital ID plans.

Similar shit is happening in the EU - travellers entering from outside the EU will be obliged to supply biometrics and fingerprints - to be permanently stored...for convenience for future entries or some such bs!

[–] FishFace@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Your reply imagines a future in which id is simultaneously used for more things than in any country, and less secure than existing technology (it's not possible for example to clone digital id in current implementations, just like you can't clone a bank card off a contactless transaction)

So I don't think this is a case of me being optimistic.

And if you're pessimistic about all of this then that's not unreasonable, but framing it as absolute opposition is unreasonable. The objections you raised are for the most part entirely surmountable by a sensible implementation. Why not change your opposition to "we shouldn't have this until a concrete proposal is put forward which satisfied x y and z?"

[–] fakeman_pretendname@feddit.uk 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Yes, I know what you mean, but this is not happening in isolation. This is happening in context with a bunch of other stuff - some of it is badly thought out Tory policies which are being enacted by the current government, and some of it is newly invented policies from the current government.

So if we think about it combined with their current crackdown on peace and environmental protest (potentially on its way to being outlawed entirely), enforced ID to access websites and (imminently) requirement to give the government access to your bank account to receive any benefits (including, of course, child benefit and disability benefits)... and suggestions about replacing all train tickets with GPS tracking your ID and location... these could all add up very quickly into a scenario as described. If they can explain how these definitely won't happen, maybe we're fine?

Also, agreed on the 'sensible implementation/concrete proposals' bit, but that's exactly what they're not doing, and there's no suggestion that that's been done in the past with anything recently, and no suggestion it will be done for this.

Are they consulting the EFF and similar? Are they consulting University Professors who are experts in their fields? Or are they consulting right-wing American surveillance companies?

There's no sensible assessment of how this would work, with thought, research, expert opinions etc - like the "ID for websites" thing - it was just pushed through by people who didn't understand how it would work.

I think this diagram explains it a bit clearer:

Basically, the most likely outcome is sadly that it will be shoddily implemented by morons and criminals, to make some right-wing twats more rich and powerful.

Truthfully, I hope I am over-reacting.

[–] Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago

What has told you in the past... 20 years? That this government, or the previous government, is capable of doing anything that isnt just 100% to fuck us all over?

The other guy is right, no one asked for this. We did ask to drop the "child" safety act, and were ignored or worse, called paedos.

Here, Ill play your game. "We shouldnt have this until we have a government that works for the people, and not to service and fill the pockets of the already rich and abusive. And even then, it should be an option. Not a demand."

This is a continuation of the push, along with accessing our private messages, to control and monitor us all 24/7. Starmer is a right wing authoritarian masquerading as a left wing leader. And the end of the road he leads us down, will be one were we have no privacy. We wont even be allowed to protest this shit.