It’s been a big weekend in Brit Card news since Keir Starmer announced the new mandatory digital ID system last Friday. The petition against the draconian measure is hovering at just below 2.5 million signatures at the time of writing.
In response to the digital ID plans, Amnesty International UK’s technology and human rights lead Javier Ruiz Diaz said:
The case for ID cards has not been made. It is not clear how these will solve any issues around migration beyond generalities that the lack of ID cards makes the UK more attractive compared to France and similar countries.
If they’re not going to solve any perceived issues around migration, what will they do? Diaz explained:
Introducing digital ID cards to control migration creates new risks of discrimination, and will likely increase existing issues identified by Amnesty UK, including racialised policing.
Forcing everyone in the UK to carry a digital ID will cause new problems. Many older people will not have a smart phone or be able to register properly. Some people may have problems accessing services, and on top of this, a national ID will create a huge risk for identity theft and a honeypot for hackers and online criminals.
A digital ID is not just a card – there are multiple human rights concerns about the concentration and linking of information, databases and infrastructure behind them.
The lack of regulation and adequate legal frameworks to protect rights under such a system is a serious cause for concern.
Asking all the wrong questions
The government put out an explainer for the Britcards on 26 September. It answered several helpful questions like ‘Will I have to pay?’ and ‘will you sell my data?’ Unfortunately, it missed out on answering others, like ‘If this is an immigration measure, what does it do that isn’t already covered by existing Right to Work checks?’
The explainer also pointed out that
Your free digital ID will be stored securely on your phone and will help to prove your identity, including age and residency status, simplifying access to government services and a range of uses across the private sector.
A few sections later, it then states:
Millions of people in the UK lack access to traditional proofs of identity like passports. It is estimated that 10% of UK citizens have never had a passport, while 93% of adults own a smart phone.
So what are we going to do about those (quick maths) millions of adults who don’t own a smartphone? We don’t know yet!
The hand of Blair
Everyone’s second favourite (…( Labour-right think tank, the Tony Blair Institute (TBI), put out a simpering executive summary on the subject of digital ID on 24 September. It explained that:
Public-opinion research commissioned by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (TBI), published for the first time in this paper, shows that digital ID enjoys majority support among the British public, with 62 per cent in favour and just 19 per cent opposed.
This support is not party-political. Those who intend to vote Labour or Conservative are equally likely to favour the introduction of a digital ID. Potential Reform UK voters, despite the party leadership’s opposition to the idea, are twice as likely to support digital ID than they are to oppose it.
The TBI’s summary joins fellow centrist stooge organisation Labour Together as champions of the digital panopticon. However, the TBI happened to link their survey for the electorate’s glowing praises of the Britcard. Lets take a look, shall we?
Q1. Thinking about the last few years, can you say whether you have felt at all inconvenienced by any of the following?
The question asks about needing to scan your passport and finding utilities letters. This is called ‘priming’. It introduces the idea that paper documents are inconvenient, fixing it in the mind of the respondent. So, we’re not getting unbiased data here, but what’s new?
Q2. Some are suggesting the government should introduce a new app, allowing instant access to a range of public services. For each of the following features, can you say whether you would or would not want the function to be included if such an app were introduced?
Hint: the TBI is suggesting this. It’s also framing the question as if the app isn’t a mandatory measure that will be needed for work and housing.
Q4. Advocates of a Digital ID argue it would enable you to prove your identity, store key facts about yourself in a way that is convenient and secure, and help you more easily access a broad range of public and private digital services. For each of the following things, would you prefer them to be run by the government, or run by private sector companies?
We’re missing an option for ‘I really don’t want my ID to be digital’ here. But if we included that option, people might pick it – best leave it off.
If we look at a slightly less biased survey from YouGov, respondents are deeply divided on the question of Digital ID. However, those opposed are currently edging out those in favour by some 3%.
For all the GCSE sociologists* out there this year: the TBI’s survey is an excellent illustration of the effect of leading questions. It’s a very poor example of how a government should collect data on the populace. It is, however, an absolute masterclass in manufacturing consent.
*GCSE students were born in 2010, so some explanation is probably needed. Tony Blair is a war criminal who made up reasons to bomb brown people. He was also UK prime minister from 1997 to 2007.
Featured image via the Canary
This post was originally published on Canary.