It might not be the current Government’s plan to use digital ID for this sort of tracking, but once created, you can’t constrain future governments from using it in that way. That&#8217…

Visit the post for more.

Think about it: if a person’s phone is the solitary credential through which they can live their life – both online and offline – then stealing somebody’s phone will suddenl…

The goal of getting people to jump through hoops is to gain assurance. The hoops must be substantial and challenging in order to work. By working, they reduce risk. Prime Minister Kier Starmer clea…

Who would ever have expected?

Now over 2.9 million signatories:

We demand that the UK Government immediately commits to not introducing a digital ID cards. There are reports that this is being looked at.

Wow. Reference to “Safari 12” suggests this is 2018-era technology, at best: Terms and conditions – GOV.UK One Login archived at

KEIR STARMER’S plan to introduce digital ID cards has a recent history. It was a project of the Blair years. Tony Blair, who has never had a personal social media presence, was keen on ID cards because of the business links that he could promote.Blair made a point of knowing nothing about labour movement or Labour Party history, and hence neither knew nor cared that the opposition to the state tracking what people are up to has a very long presence in working-class history.

Stop dangerous Children's Bill: no to digital identifier and data sharing

We demand that the UK Government immediately commits to not introducing a digital ID cards. There are reports that this is being looked at.

UK Petition: Do not introduce Digital ID cards (petition.parliament.uk) 02:01  ↑ 107 HN Points

Twenty-three Chinese cockle pickers drowned after being cut off by the tide in Morecambe Bay in 2004.

ID cards have become an essential part of life for many across the bloc, with digital versions already launched in many member states

Back in 2006, Tony Blair was _extremely_ keen on the idea of introducing mandatory ID cards. Fortunately, they were scrapped by the coalition government following Labour's 2010 general election drubbing (for the historians, though, it is worth noting the cards were originally a Tory idea, and that Blair originally campaigned _against them_). 19 years later, Tony Blair (via the Tony Blair Institute) continues to hawk the idea of a "super identity card". Unfortunately, the current government have announced plans for a mandatory "BritCard", claiming that the scheme will > help combat illegal working while making it easier for the vast majority of people to use vital government services. Digital ID will be mandatory for Right to Work checks by the end of the Parliament. Unfortunately, rather than questioning whether they should be taking advice from a yet-to-be convicted war criminal in the first place, the Government have decided that Digital ID should form a key part of their response to the Reform wave which is currently (and quite regrettably) sweeping the nation. ID cards, particularly those envisaged by Blair, have significant issues and are very unlikely to do anything to address illegal immigration. The purpose of this post is to explain (some of) why. * * * ### Preventing Illegal Migration Let's start with the core of the Government's claim. When announcing the scheme, Kier Starmer said: > I know working people are worried about the level of illegal migration into this country. A secure border and controlled migration are reasonable demands, and this government is listening and delivering. > > Digital ID is an enormous opportunity for the UK. It will make it tougher to work illegally in this country, making our borders more secure. Other material released by the Government notes that this is because Right To Work checks will be amended to require that the worker/applicant provide their digital ID. The _theory_ is simple: an illegal immigrant _won't_ have digital ID and so won't be able to pass the checks (eventually putting immigrants off coming here _at all_). However, Right To Work checks are _already_ pretty strict, with only a small set of documents considered suitable proof of ID: * A passport (showing the holder is a British citizen, or has the right of abode) * A passport (showing the holder is an Irish citizen, or has the right of abode) * A passport endorsed to show the holder is allowed to stay in the UK indefinitely * A document issued by Jersey, Guernsey or the Isle of Man _which has been verified as valid by the UK Home Office_ * A current Immigration Status Document (issued by the Home Office) noting an indefinite right to stay in the UK **accompanied by** an official document providing a National Insurance Number * A UK, Channel Islands, Isle of Man or Irish birth (or adoption) certificate **accompnaied by** an official document providing National insurance number * A certificate of naturalisation as a British Citizen **accompnaied by** an official document providing National insurance number Although the Prime Minister's statement made reference to "finding an old utility bill", those aren't actually of any use during Right To Work checks. To summarise the list above, the only forms of ID _currently acceptable_ for Right To Work checks are documents which have been issued or verified by the UK Government. * * * #### Current Workers It's obviously somewhat difficult to get accurate numbers of those working having arrived here via illegal means. The clue to the reason for that is in the name "undocumented migrant". However, the Government's 2025 report notes that, in the prior year, there were 7130 arrests for illegal working and 2105 civil penalties were issued to employers. We don't know the detection rate, so it isn't possible to extrapolate to a total number of workers, but we also probably don't need to. What really matters (and should surprise no-one) is that there _are_ people working illegally, despite the existence of the system that Digital ID will _have_ to rely on. But, how did that come to be? Maybe _some_ of those workers presented fake ID (the Government certainly suggests that forgeries can be a problem), but it seems far more likely that the majority were working for an employer who _didn't conduct Right To Work checks in the first place_. The number of penalties issued supports that theory too - it seems relatively unlikely that a penalty would have been levied if an employer could show that they'd checked ID in good faith. If Right To Work checks aren't actually being conducted, it doesn't matter what additional ID the Government introduces. In fact, they could introduce _mandatory tap classes_ and have about the same level of impact. * * * #### Identifying Approved Migrants Preventing undocumented workers from working might be quite difficult, but perhaps the aim is to provide legal/documented migrants with the means to prove that they **are** allowed to work? The problem is, **we already do that**. Until the end of last year, migrants were issued with Biometric Residence Permits: The Government stopped issuing these last year and, instead, replaced them with eVisas. eVisas are _very similar_ in function to the Right To Work system that the Government seems to envisage: a smartphone app allowing migrants to prove that they have the right to work in the UK. So, as a country, we **already issue a digital ID to approved migrants**. * * * #### What Is Going To Change? Let's lay out before and after: Group | Before | After ---|---|--- **Undocumented, working illegally** | No Digital ID reqd | No Digital ID reqd **Documented, working legally** | Digital ID reqd | Digital ID reqd **UK National** | No Digital ID reqd | Digital ID reqd The only group who see a meaningful change in requirements, is UK Nationals. It will, effectively, become mandatory1 for UK Nationals to have a digital ID. Approved Migrant workers already have one and black market workers will continue to not have or need one. It _might_ also become a little easier for employers to conduct Right To Work checks (of course, being a Government procured system, it _could_ also get more difficult and unreliable). Unless the Government's position is that the _Home Office are failing_ to properly control or vet official documents, it seems likely that the introduction of digital ID cards will do little to _nothing_ to prevent illegal working. Even that has it's own precedent: in 2005, the minister in charge of the original ID card scheme admitted that: > perhaps in the past the government, in its enthusiasm, oversold the advantages of identity cards [and] did suggest, or at least implied, that they might well be a panacea for identity fraud, for benefit fraud, terrorism, entitlement and access to public services It seems _almost inevitable_ that we're being subjected to a similar level of hyperbole now. * * * ### Learning From History Each of us _already_ exists in multiple Government databases (Driving License, HMRC & Passports etc etc). It might seem odd, then, to be concerned about adding one more. The answer to why lies, partly, in the past. Although the details of _this_ scheme have yet to be determined, looking at the _previous_ ID card scheme can help us see what it might eventually look like (especially given Blair's involvement in both). Under Blair, ID cards started out as just another form of ID (and a voluntary one at that). However, the scheme suffered from **significant** scope creep: * The underlying database (The National Identity Registry) could contain 50 different pieces of information about individuals * It was decided that Passports would be tied to the NIR - those applying/renewing would be entered into the database even if they didn't opt into an ID card * In order to reduce costs, the Government shifted from creating a completely new system to bastardising the DWP's Customer Information System, creating concerns around governance and accountability in the process * From November 2008, Identity Cards became compulsory for those applying to stay as students, or based on marriage * In order to address cost concerns, the Government intended to charge _other Government departments_ , driving up the cost that individuals and businesses would need to pay for other services Although they started out as voluntary and limited in scope, that scope grew quite quickly. As a result of limited uptake, the Government sought to find new ways to drive adoption. In January 2008 a leaked document was published in The Times, noting that > Various forms of coercion, such as designation of the application process for identity documents issued by UK ministers (eg, passports) are an option to stimulate applications in a manageable way. The Identity Minister at the time noted that ID cards presented a "convenient way for young people to prove their age when going to bars" (something, incidentally, that the current Government has _also_ referred to when responding to a petition against Britcard). **A month later** , while on a trip to promote ID cards, that same minister had to admit that even she had forgotten to bring hers with her. Ultimately, there was such a pervasively low level of demand/sign-ups that Civil Servants were _even_ encouraged to email friends and relatives in order to try and convince them to sign up. That Government spent _significant_ amounts of taxpayer money on a scheme that the public didn't want, use or even ultimately benefit from. Unfortunately, the current scheme _seems_ to be being driven by some of the same minds. * * * ### Digital Sovereignty Be Damned This is a topic that many non-techies are unlikely to care about... _for now_. The Government's stated intention is that the new Digital ID will "sit on people's phones" (they have similar plans for a digital Driving License, both of which will live in a Digital Wallet). This aspect of the scheme hasn't been well defined yet, but we can look at similar schemes in order to build expectations around how it's likely to work. Earlier this year, the EU's Age Verification App came into focus as a result of a stated intention to rely on the Google Play Integrity API (and, on iOS devices, Apple App Attestation). These APIs help apps to verify the device that they are running on. However, a hard dependency on them _also_ prevents apps from being used on devices which do not run Google or Apple's services. Essentially, it means that, not only do you need a smartphone, it needs to be running specific software. User running things Lineage and GrapheneOS are, obviously, very much a minority use-case. However, user population sizes are only _one small part_ of this2. The much more crucial aspect of this dependency is that it will tie _every single British citizen_ to the services of these US tech giants. * * * #### International Trends This is happening at a time when the US is still coming to terms with having installed a mad king, whose unpredictability has delivered repeated shocks to global markets and international relationships. Rather than forming part of the resistance, the US tech giants have been bending the knee in various ways. Earlier this year, Microsoft suspended services to a member of the International Criminal Court after Trump sanctioned ICC staff for investigating the role of Israeli politicians played in atrocities perpetrated against Palestinians in Gaza3 . That shot across the bows has not gone unnoticed and various Governments are responding by moving away from US providers: * Austria's Armed Forces are ditching Microsoft Office and will use Libre Office instead "to achieve greater digital sovereignty" * Denmark is also on a path towards moving away from Microsoft * A German state (Schleswig-Holstein) had already started its switch * Dutch parliamentarians passed measures to encourage the Government to move * The European Commission is being lobbied to take action (there's even talk of public sector orgs standardising onto an EU OS) These aren't simply cost saving measures: in every one of these examples, Digital Sovereignty has been listed as a motivating factor. It helps that moving to non-US providers is _far_ more viable than it's ever previously been. When I looked earlier this year, I found that there were a wide range of possible offerings. * * * #### Backend Services In the context of all this upheaval and uncertainty, it seems insane that the UK Government could consider a green-field project which ties citizens to providers that other Governments are increasingly seeking to escape from4. Unfortunately, we've _only_ talked about the app that users will need: there will be back-end services too. According to The Mail (ewww, I know), Ministers have been meeting with the Ellison Institute of Technology, suggesting that Oracle might well be in a position to win the contract to build and operate the Right To Work system. For the non-techies out there: Oracle are renowned for squeezing every penny possible out of their ~~victims~~ customers. They are an extremely aggressive company who've a reputation for deceptive licensing terms, contract lock in and expensive litigation. There are also serious issues of trust: Just this year, Oracle were accused of trying to cover up a cybersecurity incident which impacted customer data. Large databases, such as the one that would need to underpin the Digital ID, _do_ tend to make for a juicy target - the very least that taxpayers should be able to expect is providers who can be trusted to do the right thing when they screw up. Oracle's billionaire owner (Larry Ellison) is quite something too, having once said: > Citizens will be on their best behavior[sic] because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on. Oracle already have a _lot_ of fingers in the public sector pie, but it really is in no-one's interest to give them more opportunity to (contractually) pick our pockets. What all of this means is that there is a possible future where, not only will UK citizens need a phone made by a US provider, but their data will be held in a system controlled by another US provider (and potentially in reach of the US Government via the CLOUD act). All funded by our taxes, of course. * * * ### Conclusion The "Britcard"5 isn't much more than a proposal at the moment, and there is still **a lot** to be defined. However, the same was true of the scheme at the turn of the century, which grew from its early proposals into an expensive and privacy-hostile mistake. It should be more than a little concerning _for everyone_ that Tony Blair has apparently had a hand in **both** , especially given his close ties to Oracle's Larry Ellison. A quick skim of history suggests that the current Government is following a very similar playbook to Blair's government: both Governments have claimed that ID cards will save us from the _en vogue_ existential threat. Back then, it was terrorism, today it's illegal immigration. What history makes clear, though, is that ID cards do nothing to address these problems on their own. The only way that they can ever have even a tiny chance of doing so, is by being tied to onerous (and sometimes outright dystopian) systems. The previous Labour government's scheme floundered and their response was to try and require further adoption. This Government's statement makes it clear that they intend coercion from the start, by tying ID cards to the Right To Work scheme (even if also making weasely claims that it won't be illegal not to have one). There's is, though, a simple truth which underpins all of this: there are **no** simple solutions to systemic issues. Whether it's illegal immigration, political corruption, terrorism or inequality, anyone who promises that "this one thing" will address it is either mistaken or lying. If digital ID _is_ introduced, there's a significant possibility that it will tie UK citizens to providers that other Governments are currently working to _escape_. Whatever Trump's intentions for the future of the US might prove to be, we too will be tied to them and, as contracts unfold, taxpayer money will go not to local causes but to filling the coffers of US billionaires. * * * 1. The Government insists that it won't be illegal to not have one. They have had to concede though that it'll be pretty hard to exist without one, given that you won't be able to work (or potentially, rent) without using one to pass ID checks. So, not mandatory, but only as long as you're not opposed to starving out in the cold. ↩ 2. I do, though, have a lot of sympathy for the argument that introducing something mandatory means your solution **must** cover everyone ↩ 3. Trump's not done yet, either - he's reportedly considering further sanctions ↩ 4. Yes, I know... the UK and the US enjoy a "special relationship". What happens, though, when he unilaterally slaps tariffs onto lube? ↩ 5. Another lesson they haven't learnt from the past. The original ID cards were first branded as "entitlement" cards, but the name was dropped after focus groups said the name was weaselly. ↩

…and all they can do is retrench; extended details at the link: We will introduce a digital ID within this Parliament to help tackle illegal migration, make accessing government services easier, an…