Why We Must Oppose Digital ID Cards – Artificial Lawyer

There can be no more important legal issue than one’s own liberty, which is why we must oppose the UK Government’s suddenly announced plan to impose mandatory digital ID cards on the population.

The Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, upon the insistence of Tony Blair, the former leader and his mentor, now turned global lobbyist, and who in turn is backed by Californian tech billionaire Larry Ellison, and who both may profit from this – has told us that we will all be getting ‘a digital ID [that] will sit on people’s phones’ (see Gov announcement here.)

This is even though such a massive change to the fabric of this country was never on the Labour Party’s ticket when it got elected. In fact, one theory could be that this is being pushed through now so quickly precisely because A) the Government is incredibly unpopular after failing to deliver on its promises, and B) that Starmer may be replaced due to this and then a less ‘malleable’ Prime Minister may end up in Number 10. I.e this is being rushed through now as if it were a fait accompli, precisely because the window of opportunity may be closing for Blair and his backers. And that is all the more reason why we have to stop this rushed, badly thought-out, and damaging project.

So, why is it a bad idea? Here’s some thoughts:

First and foremost it’s unnecessary, to work in the UK you already need a national insurance number, everyone who works has one. So, the spurious idea that the ID card will prevent illegal workers is void.

British citizens also have a wide range of other IDs already: national health numbers, driving licences, and of course passports. With these four main IDs it seems truly bizarre that we need to a have a centralised, super-connected digital one, on our phones….

So, what is this for then if it’s not really about preventing illegal workers and other focus-group developed phoney arguments? It would seem it’s primarily about creating a national database that will, over time, inevitably be connected to much of what we do, and not just used as a proof we can work (which as noted, is redundant as such IDs already exist.)

At this point AL will let Big Brother Watch, a charity headed by the well-known human rights expert Silkie Carlo, add some key points:

‘The mandatory digital ID scheme called ‘BritCard’ would make us all reliant on a digital pass to go about our daily lives.

This system would fundamentally change the nature of our relationship with the state.

A mandatory digital ID is not a magic solution for all situations…[and] is inconsistent with the values that underpin a free society and poses serious risks to privacy, security and equality.

Also, people in marginalised, vulnerable and minority groups are more likely to have reduced access to online services (e.g. people with disabilities, low income or the elderly), particularly where digital identity is a requirement.

And a centralised digital ID scheme would also be a honeypot for hackers and foreign adversaries, creating huge digital security risks for our data. [ Note: several major airports, corporations, and even parts of the health service have been attacked in recent years….and we want a government department to manage these digital IDs, perhaps connected in the future to other vital information, of over 60 million people? What could go wrong…? ]

Britain has historically rejected various forms of mandatory ID. We must reject this one too.’ (And you can read more about Carlo’s campaign here.

More broadly, this all feels extremely anti-democratic. There is no mandate from the voters for the Government to do this. In fact, a recent poll found that if there were an election today Labour would be crushed at the ballot box and out of power, such is their unpopularity after a very short time in office. Moreover, another recent poll found that Starmer himself is ‘the most unpopular British Prime Minister on record’. Where exactly is the support of the people for this current group of politicians – who are in theory meant to represent us – to impose upon us something we never asked for, wanted, or voted for?

Now, we could also look at Tony Blair and the bloody fiasco of the ‘dodgy dossier’ – a manufactured document designed to trick people into supporting a war – and also consider whether a billionaire thousands of miles away has any real interest in this country’s well-being? With such people behind this project: a Prime Minister who appears to be soon to collect his P45; a former leader who has a track record for manipulation of the facts and working with some very dubious people via his ‘Institute’; and an ‘oligarch’ focused on enriching himself even more, what on Earth could possibly make someone think that any of this was a good idea or that it will turn out well?

Another question is: why does the Government want this, aside from old-fashioned surveillance? One possible reason is they and their tech backers want more data. An ID card on your phone, that over time will inevitably get connected to more and more of your life, will be a rich source of private data. Who will use that data? Who will it be sold to? What will it be used for?

Ultimately, this all feels like a Western version of what China installed some years ago, albeit that it is a society that has never known democracy and seems to be happy with that reality. But, the UK is not China. We have elected governments. We – at least on paper – have a high degree of liberty and personal freedom.

The government’s arguments in favour of a mandatory ID card on our phones are all nonsensical. There is therefore no reason for this other than the very negative ones noted above. We should oppose this project and leverage our networks throughout the legal and regulatory world to ensure it never happens.

P.S. A petition to demand Parliament debate this issue has already reached over 2.4 million signatures, see here if you’d also like to show your support.