A very wise man – his name was Brian Micklethwait – once
said to me: “Don’t try to talk to your enemies. Talk about them.”
Having been asked to respond to yet another government consultation on digital
ID, I have decided, on this occasion, to act on his sage advice. Rather than
just pour my arguments against digital ID into the deaf ears of government, I
decided to write on the issue for the interested public. I have given up on
trying to talk to the cabal of enemies of humanity, that masquerades as a
government. Instead, I will talk about them.
Now, I am active in the civil liberties organization
Together, as well as being campaign manager for my local branch of Reform UK. I
was also a member of NO2ID two decades ago. About seven months ago, I responded
to a “Call for Evidence” on Labour’s digital ID project. That response is here:
[[1]]. A
week ago, Together announced that on Saturday April 25th they would
be holding simultaneous rallies against digital ID in London, Edinburgh,
Cardiff and Belfast. Just three days ago, I was reminded that the digital ID project
had reached the formal “consultation” stage: [[2]].
And all this despite a parliamentary petition against digital ID, which last autumn
garnered almost three million signatures.
Summary of my first response
Here is the summary section of my response to the call for
evidence.
“I am strongly opposed to any plan for any form of
compulsory digital ID. It would violate the human rights to dignity and
privacy. And it goes against the values of British culture – the culture which
sparked the Enlightenment, and nurtured the Industrial Revolution.
I will list six specific issues I identified:
·
The idea, that data in computer systems can be
“a single source of truth,” which can override evidence from the real world, is
fundamentally flawed. The whole idea of digital ID checking, therefore, is also
fundamentally flawed.
·
The Home Office, and government in general as at
present constituted, are untrustworthy, and should not be allowed the kind of
power that any new digital ID system would bring.
·
If use of a mobile phone is to be a necessary
part of a digital ID system, some individuals, particularly disabled and older
people, will be unable to prove who they are.
·
There are serious risks to human rights and
freedoms in any digital ID system. These include inaccuracy, overreach,
wastefulness, intrusiveness, violations of privacy and dignity rights, and
failing to act in the interests of, and with the consent of, the people.
·
Digital ID systems could far too easily lead
towards an Orwellian system of total surveillance and control.
·
The call for evidence is asking the wrong
questions. Instead of what new digital ID systems should be developed, it
should be asking whether attempts at digital ID systems in the UK have gone too
far, and should be scaled back or even scrapped.”
The parliamentary petition
The petition can be found here: [[3]].
It garnered 2,984,192 signatures from the public. It specifically opposed
introduction of a digital ID card; but most of those who signed it were opposed
to all forms of digital ID.
But the response from government proved its deafness to
the views of millions of the people it is supposed to serve. “We will introduce
a digital ID within this Parliament to help tackle illegal migration, make
accessing government services easier, and enable wider efficiencies. We will
consult on details soon.”
The more detailed response to the petition stated that the
new national digital ID would be “not a card but a new digital identity.” Clever,
that – and devious. Give way on one detail, but continue as if nothing had
happened. Typical bad faith from government.
Going digital
I think I see a pattern in the way government is trying to
force us to “go digital” in everything. We have had “making tax digital,” and
refusal of government to accept tax payments by tried and trusted methods. (I
myself was exposed to attempted fraud by someone in the Post Office, because
HMRC stopped accepting cheques for corporation tax payments). In the “private”
sector, companies wanting people to go “paper free,” and banks closing
branches, are other aspects of this. It is as if they want us to live our
entire lives digitally, not in the real world.
But I, as an evidence-based person who does not trust
anything I am told unless I see real-world evidence for it, have – despite
being myself a technologist – moved increasingly away from using on-line
services. Something you do on-line is, in a sense, not real. Even if it
has real-world consequences. Without an audit trail, you can never be sure of
what happened. And an electronic audit trail can be lost if your computer dies.
The Internet is great for information, and useful to do
things like booking appointments. But for actually doing transactions, personal
contact and traditional methods of commerce are best. Unlike on-line
transactions, they are also private between you and the other party.
This “consultation”
In responding to several government consultations in
different subject areas, I have become increasingly cynical about the value of
the “consultation” process. In every case, I found that the “consultation” was
a complete sham, because the result had already been decided. And the voices of
those who are opposed in principle to whatever scheme is being put forward are
completely ignored.
What about this particular one? It is very clear, from the
way the subject matter is presented, that it is no exception to this rule. The
decision to go ahead with the digital ID project has been made. Damn the people
who don’t want it, and damn the consequences to them! The whole exercise is no
more than box-ticking.
Of the issues I identified in my earlier response, only one
– difficulties in using a mobile phone – is even mentioned. Even there, the
problems have been over-simplified or glossed over.
Moreover, there is no mention in the consultation document
of the human right to dignity – to be treated as a human being. And the many
potentials for violations of human rights, that are inherent in any digital ID system,
aren’t addressed at all. The problems in treating a fallible database as a
“single source of truth” – as shown so clearly by the Post Office scandal – aren’t acknowledged. Nor is there any acknowledgement of previous government failures
to secure individuals’ data, nor any plan to prevent such failures in the
future. My expressed concerns have been totally ignored.
Further, as Big Brother Watch have put it: “The government
argues that digital ID is more privacy-friendly than traditional forms of
identification because it allows selective data sharing. However, this
completely overlooks the critical issue of what is recorded and shared in the
background. Even if only limited information is shared in a given interaction,
sensitive data about when, where and how the ID was used could still be
collected and stored.”
What is digital ID for?
Digital ID is touted as a foundation for “a new digital
state – that will be there for you when you need it most.” Yeah, right. The
political philosopher in me knows, without any doubt, that the political state
is an existential problem for the people it rules over, not a solution to
anything. Beyond receiving services I have already paid for, such as a pension
and the health care I need, I don’t want to have anything to do with the state
at all.
I certainly don’t want to have to prove, at the state’s slightest
whim, who I am. That way lies tyranny. For what happens if the system fails me,
even once? By malfunction, by hacking, or perhaps by a decision of some state functionary
that has taken a dislike to me? “The computer says No!” Does that not violate my
right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?
Digital ID is for everyone?
Then I see, said of the scheme: “It must be for everyone.”
Revealing words, which give the lie to any idea that it will be optional. Even
if they were not meant to be read so.
And it will “come together in the GOV.UK App on your phone.”
Useless, and by implication dangerous, for those of us who are not dexterous
enough to use a mobile phone effectively.
Public interest
Then there is: “We know there’s been a significant level of
public interest in the digital ID system, which is why we’re launching this
national conversation, so you can have your say on how it is built.” But the
“significant level of public interest” has been coming mainly from those
millions of people who, like me, don’t want the damned thing at all.
Scrap it, and you’ll save both your time and our money.
Which could far better be spent on things we do want and need, like auditing
government to ensure it is always honest towards the people it is supposed to
serve. And thereby making sure that government never again uses taxpayers’
money on any scheme, that goes against the interests of those taxpayers.
Legal obligation
“There will be no legal obligation for people to have or
present the digital ID.” Well, that does seem to be a concession – at least,
for this month. But don’t these goons understand that many, many people
have totally lost all trust in government and everything it does?
We have been lied to or misled so often, and promises have
been broken so many times, that we have come to expect what government
tells us to be misleading, deceptive or a downright lie. And almost everything
government does to us, it does in bad faith. Like its response to the petition:
dropping the “card” from “digital ID card,” but keeping the “digital ID” part.
Why do this at all?
And then: “Above all, the digital ID will be useful. It will
help people to prove who they are and things about themselves, like their age,
in the public and private sectors.” But why the hell should I have to
prove who I am? Or my age?
I know who I am! Anyone, whom I want to know who I am,
already knows who I am. And when I introduce myself to someone new, people who
know me will vouch for who I am. I have already made arrangements for those
situations where something more formal is necessary, such as bank cards. Why,
then, should having to prove who I am ever be necessary in anything but the
most exceptional circumstances?
As I recall, the first time I ever had to prove my identity,
except for passing through a national border, was when opening a business bank
account in 1993. I even bought my home in 1986 without needing to have any ID
checked. Since then, governments have mushroomed the occasions on which people
need to prove who they are. They are pushing digital ID as a “solution” to a
problem they themselves brought on us.
That leads me to ask: did they create this problem in order
to force digital ID on us? With the follow-up: once a digital ID is in place, won’t
they want to use it to mushroom the situations in which we are required to
prove our identity? And so, to collect a more and more detailed picture of
everything we do? Every financial transaction, every journey anywhere, every
item bought in the supermarket, every drink bought in the pub, for example? A
picture that can then be policed, perhaps by AI bots looking for patterns of
behaviour different from the desired norms du jour? Such a system smacks
of the tyranny of George Orwell’s “1984.”
As to proving age, it is insulting to ask anyone over about
25 – particularly women – their age. “Adult” is perfectly sufficient. And I’ve
been officially an adult for more than half a century. Once an adult, always an
adult.
The “People’s Panel”
The document proposes a “People’s Panel for Digital ID.”
This is horribly reminiscent of the “UK Climate Assembly” of 2019, which was
lectured by biased “experts,” then produced an extremist report. Extremist in
favour of the establishment-desired policy of “net zero,” of course. That was a
complete travesty of “democracy” and “consulting the people.” So, no doubt,
will this be.
Digital Driving Licence
Does the upcoming introduction of a Digital Driving Licence
imply that people will no longer be able to renew their driving licence by
post? This will create serious problems for people over 70 who need to renew
their licence every three years, and may force people over 70 into getting a
digital ID just for this one application. Would this not invalidate the
statement that “Across all uses, the digital ID will be optional?”
Revocation of ID
Section 2.2 gives government power to revoke an individual’s
digital ID. This will be “governed by robust processes,” whatever that means.
As Big Brother Watch puts it: “I do not want to live in a
society where your ability to exist and be recognised as a citizen with rights
is dependent on a digital ID check.” And “If the digital ID becomes a
requirement for everyday life, then this sets a dangerous precedent, by which
people can be locked out of accessing basic services.” Just like the
“unpersoning” of Syme in George Orwell’s “1984.” Or the instant “de-banking” of
people who are unable to provide “know your customer” data on request, as the banks
are threatening.
“Transformative” nature
Part 3 says: “The national digital ID will be transformative
for government services and sectors across the economy.” This word
“transformative” has an extremely unpleasant ring, sounding like the verbiage
used by the United Nations and the WEF. Government should be serving us, not
trying to “transform” us or itself.
Universal unique identifier
“We are considering developing a universal unique identifier
(or similar approach) tied to the digital ID and GOV.UK One Login, to enable
consistent reference across government services.” Won’t having a single
reference, which can be shared with third parties, encourage those parties to
collect as much data as they can on individuals and link them to the reference,
so they can pester people with personalised ads and the like? And does this not
negate all the protections put forward in the section on “Privacy by design and
default?”
Big Brother Watch have identified the same pitfalls within
government as well. “Rather than empowering me to choose what information I
share with specific departments, this proposal risks linking all my records
behind the scenes, removing meaningful control over my data.” Indeed so. “I am
not a number” may be a cliché,
but that does not make it any less true.
Biometric data
A digital ID will require “a current, high-resolution
biometric facial image that meets specified requirements.”
I cannot respond better to this than to quote Big Brother
Watch: “If the government’s databases are breached, which is highly possible,
information which uniquely identifies me through a deeply personal identifying
feature will be compromised – and unlike changing a password, I cannot simply
change my face. Concerningly, the consultation also highlights that my photo
could be repurposed as a mugshot used by the police in a digital line-up for
facial recognition searches. I completely oppose this.”
Buying alcohol
Section 3.3 says: “The Home Office will update the alcohol
mandatory licensing conditions to allow for age verification using registered
DVS [digital verification services] when buying alcohol.”
Does this mean that people who don’t have a digital ID won’t
be allowed to buy alcohol, even though they are obviously older than 18?
Does it also mean that whenever someone with a digital ID
buys alcohol, this information will be logged on a database in a way that is
accessible to government or to third parties?
Right to work
The section “How right to work checks could change” is
rather vague and confusing. Does it imply that someone with a valid UK passport
but no digital ID would be refused the right to work? What if the passport has
expired?
The price
As Big Brother Watch puts it: “A digital ID will not help my
life… There are much simpler ways to inform me and help me to access public
services; indeed, if the digital ID system is voluntary, as promised, these
other methods will have to continue to take place in any event.” And: “Building
a multibillion-pound digital ID system is not a sensible use of public funds at
this time and I wholly oppose it.” I concur heartily with all these statements.
To sum up
Not only does this project bring to the people of the UK no
benefits whatsoever. But it also lays us open to Orwellian treatment – or even
worse – at the hands of the state. And it will cost us billions in the process.
It is clear that those driving this project within
government have no concern at all for the people they are supposed to serve.
They do not care about our rights and freedoms, or what we think, or what we
want.
The Nolan Principles
It is also clear that those driving this project are
violating the Nolan Principles of Public Life, to which everyone in government should
be bound by the terms of their employment contracts. These principles include:
·
Selflessness: everyone in government must act
solely in the interests of the governed, and never against those interests.
·
Openness: acting and taking decisions in an open
and transparent manner.
·
Honesty and truthfulness.
·
And treating the people they are supposed to
serve with the respect and dignity due to us as human beings.
Are those pushing the digital ID project on us behaving in
these ways? I leave you to answer.
In conclusion
The entire digital ID project is a scam against the people. It must be scrapped. Now.
No comments:
Post a Comment