Failure to present a BritCard when required may result in denial of employment, housing, or access to certain services. Employers and landlords will be legally obligated to verify status through the system, and failure to do so may result in fines or penalties.

While enforcement details are still emerging, civil liberties groups warn that the scheme could disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. Those without smartphones, digital literacy, or stable housing may struggle to access or maintain their digital ID, potentially pushing them further into the margins of society.

top 56 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 45 points 1 year ago (4 children)

What happens if your phone breaks? What happens when Google arbitrarily bans your account?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    Why digital ID? Can't they just make a physical ID like every country?

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [+] -17 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Because the year is 2025 and we have this thing called "the internet" now. Why would you want a physical ID?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Why would you want a physical ID?

    Because the year is 2025 and we have this thing called “the internet” now, where the teeniest, tiniest little failure in implementation, could result in an entire database of PII leaked to the masses. It's hard to leak a physical card.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Wait you want a physical card with no record of it? Like a deed from the 1800s or something? What?

    The government already has plenty of databases with the PII of every person in the UK. This wouldn't change that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    The difference is scope and ease of (inevitable) creep.

    In isolation, this probably isn't that big a change, as part of a trend though, this is the change that all of what is to come, hinges on.

    This is a central point of identity that is now mandatory for a jobs and housing ( + a bunch of other stuff ).

    Yes you need some things for a bank account and tax purposes, this isn't different in type, it's different in scope.

    Now, given the propensity for "think of the children" wrapping for basically any privacy encroachment they can think up , they can tie it to this, because it's digital it's significantly easier to do that.

    Previously they'd have had to think "how can we enforce this bullshit" and would have to factor in the cost of additional verification systems to support their bullshit.

    Now they don't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    You already need some kind of proof of identity to work and housing. This just designates one identifier as the one you have to use. Hardly different.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yes, as i said, different in scope not type.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Well that just seems silly. You're ok with an inconvenient ad-hoc collection of mandatory IDs, but not a unified one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    because my phone can be dropped, lost or be outdated and unsupported.

    Also, fuck you, there are clowns that can refuse the vaccine that saves peoples lives and ends a pandemic, but I HAVE TO have a fucking smartphone?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I think it should support desktop computers too, but yes it's not really unreasonable in this day and age to expect working age people to have access to a smartphone or desktop. You need lots of other things to get a job anyway e.g. a bank account, postal address. Those are actually significantly worse requirements.

    "Think of the OAPs" is why it took literally decades to get online NHS appointments.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago*

    Why no physical backup?

    I like the way US states that are (slowly) rolling out digital IDs.

    First, the physical id is not being replaced.

    Second, the digital ids only work in small subsets Until it’s rolled out to more areas.

    For example, Californias only allows usage for proving you are over 21 (the app shows a Boolean flag to the person checking your id so it’s actually MORE private) or at select airports for domestic flights.

    I am of the opinion that we CAN have a digital ID with some simple privacy items in place and ALWAY allowing a physical backup or opt out.

    All of this “think of the children” digital surveillance could be partially mitigated by allowing OIDC like (stripping out unneeded information) that allows anyone to integrate an age check, Id verification, etc without much information being sent to the other apps.

    Of course, this doesn’t solve the government knowing your business, but if physical backups were mandated it would help.

    I think these age gates are short sighted and don’t do a lot to solve the issues, as it pushed people “underground”, just like prohibition in the states, and causes more issues.

    Edit: just occurred to me, we could use a physical hardware key (like a passkey) to prove your age cryptographically without involving government apis.

    You plug the fob into your phone, computer, etc. push the button and you are good…

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (29 children)

    Can any Brits explain to an American why your country hates privacy? It sounds dystopian over there in the UK.

  • source
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (21 children)

    On this they're both outliers. Mandatory ID is pretty much the norm.

    Living in a place with it... it's fine. Helps with some things. Definitely not the weird sci-fi tyrannical dystopia Brits and Americans suggest. It mostly depends on what is built around it. It's not like identification doesn't exist for fundamental transactions in places without a single consolidated ID document.

    And yes, ours has all the accoutrements, including a digital certificate and biometric data, just like your passport does.

    None

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Mandatory ID isn't the problem. The problem is the digital and surveillance aspect.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    You sure everybody else agrees with you on that?

    Cause it doesn't sound like it.

    To be clear, I do think the UK's proposal specifically is problematic in that it requires you to privately own a device to support it and that it's targeting undocumented migrants on purpose. That said, the UK has a contentious relationship with the concept of mandatory ID that goes beyond the practical implementation issues or the actual instances of overreach being proposed alongside it.

    I mean, for one thing I have no idea why they couldn't implement this as an ID card like everybody else does.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    This map needs an explanation. Is grey just no data? Why the two shades of green? The numbers, what do they mean?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I don't see that picture in the linked article. A similar picture, but it doesn't have the numbers and shades of green.

    I know how to use search engines, by the way. But I also think that it's the responsibility of the person sharing graphs/maps to provide context for those graphs to enable readers to understand the data without having to go and do their own research. There's no guarantee anyone finds the original source or that the source even provides the necessary context, if the sharer just grabbed a picture from Google Images without regard for the source.

    So no, I won't even attempt to find context and happily push that burden back on the person who lazily shared a graph without explanation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You see both a larger picture that provides the same, consistent info with additional data and an explanation of the information contained in the screenshot I shared above. Typically a second independent source is considered a good thing when fact checking, friend.

    Buyt hey, since you're so simultaneously concerned with sourcing every single instance of the same data and unwilling to do any work to find it yourself (which you aren't, at this point you're mostly being antagonistic), the source of the original image is this video, not Google Images.

    And in case you're too busy demanding other people do work for you for free to actually watch it, the numbers are the age gates for mandatory ID in those countries and are there because I just happened to land on that particular frame when screenshotting it. Because... yeah, I decided to only devote so much time into looking this up for you all. I do enough homework for people on the Internet as it is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    That video is what you could've linked in the first place. It clearly explains the whole situation, and the colors and numbers make sense in the context (they're highlighted examples and not really exceptional cases). Don't act like you're doing any "work for free" when you yourself admit you're lazily cropping other people's work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    So let me get this straight, you're arguing that you shouldn't be repurposing other people's images in conversations on Lemmy/Fedi?

    Have you... seen the Internet?

    Also, I pasted a screenshot to a piece of info instead of linking the fifteen minute video where it originated specifically to save people time. How hard can you Karen at someone giving you an accurate piece of info? You have now posted three separate times acting all mad about receiving accurate, increasingly detailed information. Am I allowed to go do my other tasks of the day now, boss? Or do you need me to look up any other factoids while you slap me with a riding crop?

    I mean, I can fulfil a fact checking fetish in a pinch, unusual as that may be, but I do think we should get some safety words down at this point.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Which "your" are you referring to? If it's þe US passport, a difference is þat many Americans don't own a passport. You only need one to travel internationally. I'm not sure if þey're even sufficient for domestic flying anymore, wiþ þe RealID push. But if you don't fly, you don't need eiþer. And if you don't drive or want to drink in a bar, you don't even need a driver's license. In þe US, þe only þing you can't live wiþout is a social security card, because þat's needed to work, and many parents get þeir kids þeir SSC when þey're still children. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if þere's a not-insignificant population of adult citizens in þe US who have no ID at all beyond a birþ certificate, and probably a few who lack even þat.

    We may have become a fascist police state, but deeply rural America is still a vast area wiþ a significant population.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    "Your" as in pretty much everybody's. The vast majority of countries have biometric data in passports. And a majority have compulsory ID.

    And frankly, I don't particularly care about how weird people in the US are these days. I'm not sure I get what point you're trying to make. Is the fact that you can redneck yourself all the way off the grid supposed to be a good thing in this scenario?

    Also, what's with all the thorn usage? Is your keyboard broken or have you been watching too many linguistics videos in Youtube and developed an affectation?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    It's not just rural US; many Americans don't have a passport. Unlike Europe, we don't use it as a primary form of ID, and we never have, so þis is not a recent þing. Passports are for international travel, and relatively few Americans live wiþin driving distance of an international border.

    You can sneer all you like, but it's an American phenomenon, not just þe USA. Only 70% of Canadians have a passport, and more þan US only because far more of þe population lives close to þe US border - most of Canada is wilderness. Around 56% of Mexicans hold a passport, 20% of Brazilians... and, hell, only 25% of Japanese have one.

    My point is that much of the world don't have passports. Maybe it seems oþerwise from your Euro-centric viewpoint, but surprise: most of þe population of þe world lives outside Europe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Nobody in Europe uses a passport as a primary form of ID, what are you on about? Within the EU you don't even need a passport to travel. Passport coverage rankings in Europe are between 40 and 80%, just like pretty much everywhere else. Are you under the impression that people in the EU just present their passport to identify themselves at the bank? Because... no, they don't.

    But most of Europe (and pretty much every other continent) does have some form of mandatory ID. And most ID, mandatory or not, now contains biometric identification, and that includes passports even in countries without mandatory ID, with only a few exceptions.

    I'd be more contrarian about whatever point you're trying to make, but there doesn't seem to be one. Still super curious about how you grew a thorn key on your keyboard and how you came to think this was a cool thing to do online, speaking of erroneous impressions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    My point is that much of the world don't have passports. Maybe it seems oþerwise from your Euro-centric viewpoint, but surprise: most of þe population of þe world lives outside Europe.

    Leaving this here for posterity, do with it as you will.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    What, as in just in case he removes specifically that part? I mean, I wouldn't wory, it's the least wrong part of his previous post, although it's still supremely weird that they're so obsessed with passports.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Nah, the part where the thorn slipped.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Oh, hah. Hadn't noticed. Man, that makes me more curious. I assumed it was some sort of macro, but if it isn't then I want to know what typing solution is in play.

    Whatever, if they want to be that guy, be that guy. We used to have post signatures in forums and recognize people from those. It's just... you know, people are gonna keep asking, understandably.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Well, let’s see. The UK wants mandatory ID because today you can walk in to an hospital and get $100,000 of free healthcare without even proving you are entitled to it. And you can maybe work without paying taxes. And you move freely and safely anywhere in the country.

    In the US, if you do not have proof of citizenship on you at all times (and maybe even if you do), you may be snatched off the street, detained, and perhaps even sent to a foreign prison all without due process of any kind.

    Wow, now that I say it out loud, you are right. The UK sounds like a hell-hole.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Well, let’s see. The UK wants mandatory ID because today you can walk in to an hospital and get $100,000 of free healthcare without even proving you are entitled to it.

    the healtcare does not cost that much in the UK, because we/they don't have idiotic "insurance" companies driving up the prices to make one OTC pill that should cost 30cents cost 400 dollars.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    ID was mandatory before for employment too. This is more a one ID to rule them all kind of thing.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Every time I start to forgive labour enough to vote for them next time to keep reform out they find a new reason to make me stay home.

    What a fucking fail party.

    Edit: I'm fine with mandatory ID for citizens, but with the UKs history of building digital services rolling this out to be digital first will almost certainly be a total disaster

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So.... The British Government are choosing to make Alex Jones right. Not a good idea.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment