It's bad enough being asked to show ID to prove I'm over 18 when someone delivers alcohol from an idiot supplier that demands age be checked.

I'm nudging 70, I've slogged through jungles, fired weapons at people, helped nail baddies, and done many other grown-up things, they all took their toll, I definitely look way over 18.

There'll be an increasing stream of companies and services demanding it as a compliance/arse-covering/data trawling exercise.

It's also much easier to say "always ask" rather than have people try and make judgements about whether someone is "clearly" old enough.

It's not simply asking, it's refusing to hand over my own property, at my own front door, unless I produce ID to prove I'm over age, not to prove identity.

They then record details from the ID.

Next time I might just take it from them.

"This is not a card but a new digital identity" (from the explanation on the petition site)

A digital identity. What's that when it's at home?

If evidence were needed that this was a sudden brain-fart blurted out without thinking it's in that statement. They'll work out later what a digital identity might be.

Breathing is also not compulsory.

... but it helps to keep the heart beating.

Then call it a right to work card. You know, like a driving licence for driving.

As for 'Estonians save hours each month': That's just horse chocolates.

Or if it's so wonderful for everyday things then offer it as an app and watch the public take it on board.

It will of course be linked to the police records because CRB checks... and then some.

If I can get my digital identity back after my phone is lost then so can crooks and abusive families.

If government wanted us to save us hours each month, they would have lifted non-sensical trade restrictions for Sunday. It's often extra 2-3 hours to do weekly shop if you have no choice but to do it on Sunday.

"You never know, Palantir might even decide to get involved if that consultation meets its level of satisfaction and the contract is worth enough money."

No, no, no. Too many words - I suspect the correct form to be: "Palantir might even decide to get involved IF the contract is worth enough money."

Still too many words: "Palantir will decide to screw it up"

quote: Digitally checkable digital credentials are more secure than physical documents.

A photocopy of a passport in a locked cupboard is far safer than a scan of one, such as those which are regularly lifted in malware attacks.

And we already have National Insurance numbers.

A digital society is an Orwellian society. We need to use tech more sparingly and more securely. If something is safer on paper, leave it on paper.

My response to Starmer, whose increasingly unpopular regime has just censored the internet with the OSA, despite having ISP blocks and mobile blocks that worked fine, is short and ends in 'off'.

All these policies do, is lose votes for Labour and push Reform into power. That means Farage running the UK. Or, if it looks like too much work, I'm sure Boris Johnson or Liz Truss could be enticed to return.

It's not Starmer's regime. These policies don't come from big brain of his. They are bought by big corporations who can bypass democratic process, on MI5 watch (or lack of).

OSA isn't Starmer's

The tory-brexiters imposed it on us.

.......if you want to see JUST HOW MUCH MONEY this "Digital ID" scheme is likely to waste:

Link: https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/03/ons_data_sharing_mess/

Yup......just today!!!

There was a consultation exercise last time, which only served to produce a long list of (ignored & hand waved away) reasons people didn't want ID cards while govt drones used 'nothing to hide' as a perverse way of insinuating anyone against ID was up to no good.

“Cheery was aware that Commander Vimes didn't like the phrase 'The innocent have nothing to fear', believing the innocent had everything to fear, mostly from the guilty but in the longer term even more from those who say things like 'The innocent have nothing to fear'.”

― Terry Pratchett, Snuff

See: https://www.spectator.co.uk/illustration/digital-id-cards/

....or this one: https://www.spectator.co.uk/illustration/they-were-so-benign-when-they-were-first-introduced/

Or [1]https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2025/10/01/TELEMMGLPICT000442644373_17593385021980_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqqVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu2jJnT8.jpeg?imwidth=350&imdensity=2

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2025/10/01/TELEMMGLPICT000442644373_17593385021980_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqqVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu2jJnT8.jpeg?imwidth=350&imdensity=2

A section missed from the article (this is from the response from the government to the petition).

"To tackle these interlinked issues, we will introduce a new national digital ID. This is not a card but a new digital identity that will be available for free to all UK citizens and legal residents aged 16 and over (although we will consider through consultation if this should be age 13 and over). Over time, people will be able to use it to seamlessly access a range of public and private sector services, with the aim of making our everyday lives easier and more secure. It will not be compulsory to obtain a digital ID but it will be mandatory for some applications."

Specifically: to seamlessly access a range of public and private sector services

So they already plan to let private sector have access to the system in some form. Okay, so age verification would be the obvious reason, but it's a very vague, open ended promise/threat.

Plus: How will this be free? Nothing is free: Someone will have to pay for the system, and maintain it, and ensure only those entitled to have digital ID can get it. That side raises the spectre that this will be paid for by selling people's data to private concerns. And more importantly, those private sector service providers.

Also:

"For clarity, it will not be a criminal offence to not hold a digital ID and police will not be able to demand to see a digital ID as part of a “stop and search.”"

Which is nice, but that doesn't help when it's mandated for access to things, such as voting. And to these 'private sector services'. That's on top of the requirement for digital ID just to have a job in the first place, or access to benefits, support and NHS treatment. Which has been noted will have zero impact on illegal workers, and the idea that digital ID will help identify which companies shirk the law and don't check ID's? Why aren't they doing that already? Or is it a case that they don't bother to register people working for them where they didn't check the right to work? So they're not paying NI or PAYE for those employees? So they might be paying lower that national minimum wage already... and no one is paying attention or taking note it's already happening? And that's not touching on some of the work scams that have hit the papers recently?

So it's all hollow words and deflection: We will have to have this digital ID, we will have to carry it, and it WILL be used to track us by private concerns because they WILL abuse it as often as they can. And the Government knows this and doesn't care 'cause... why would they?

Wait until they push an update that will track everyone's location.

It will be compulsory to new applications for state benefits initially.

Then anything at gov.uk

Then to buy alcohol and prescription drugs.

Now we have 90% of the population, so can be extended to petrol, bog roll purchase etc.

Something I must have missed is that these "cards" will also be location trackers as soon as the "security services" (and if history is anything to go by your local council) have access to them. I know that can be done now but to have all the information in a single place will make things much easier.

Looks like I will need a new burner phone when they make them mandatory.

Quote: "....a new burner phone...."

Suggest that you get a VOIP application on your phone......and remove the SIM!!

Not ideal, I know, but eliminates the tracking via the mobile phone network!!

"Not ideal, I know, but eliminates the tracking via the mobile phone network!!"

You really don't understand how this technology works, do you?

@AC

....so explain what it is that one needs "to understand"..........

#Not the AC but I'll try to explain.

A: The phone connects via a radio link to the cell tower system with a $UniqueHardwareIdentifier$, this HAS to be tracked in order to route incoming data to the correct tower for transmission onto the selected $UniqueHardwareIdentifier$ radio link. The mobile phone can be tracked & location triangulated as it communicates with multiple towers, the presence of a SIM merely acts as key allowing the owner to use it as intended.

B: The SIM uses the radio connection 'A' to the cell tower to announce it's on $ProviderNetwork$ with $PhoneNumber$ this is to allow billing and the use of short phone numbers which are a completely legacy hangover from when land lines used real numbered wires to make a physical connection.

'A' does not need 'B' for any purpose.

'B' needs 'A' to work.

@Wellyboot

Thanks. But the point was "to remove the SIM" so that none of what you describe is even relevant.

See Captain Hogwash below!

Kind of. What it actually does is prevent the number appearing in the HLR (which is not supposed to be sold but clearly is acquired by tracking companies somehow.)

So, you can give companies you deal with a SIP number to contact you, but they can't use it to determine your location.

Removing the SIM is kind of pointless unless you're happy to only use the phone on wifi. The answer? Port your mobile number to a SIP provider, get another SIM, never tell anyone the new SIM number and never call with it unless the number is hidden. Use the mobile network's data connection for SIP calls when out and about.

If everyone will have Digital ID ankle tag but you, it will be even easier to track you, since you will be standing out in the noise.

This all seems very Home Office. There's a large element at HO who've been after this for years and years. They know that they can never get it through with a Tory government, as it'll be seen as a right wing move that voters will baulk at. Instead, the policy hawks wait to float it until there's a Labour govt.

A lot depends on how quickly a Home Sec 'goes native' - obviously, Shabana Mahmood and her SpAds have turned pretty quickly.

I'm a director of two small limited companies. Companies House now require directors to register with a Government One Login account to be linked to their directorship record. Which is done by email address.

The problem is that a Government One Login account can't have more than one email address. So I have had to register TWO "One Login" accounts, validating my identity using exactly the same passport details, so that I could connect them to the two email addresses I use for the two companies I'm a director of.

I wonder whether, should this "Digital ID" system come into effect, I could end up with TWO official IDs?

Don't worry. It's fucked up by design.

I use one-time email addresses so I know whose database has been hacked to spam me. So the NHS in its wisdom uses the address for the physio I saw once upon a time for everything. They also make your phone number available to all and sundry, so I had to tell my GP to delete it because the local hospital kept sending me junk texts. So more instances of poorly thought out public data structures.

Is already doing some of this via the back door.

All kids starting high school are automatically signed up for it and get a Young Scot card which allows them free bus travel etc. and as proof of age.

This is actually a national entitlement card under a different name.

It's actually run by local councils, they can do different things with it like add a tag for disabled bus pass etc., but no doubt there is a national spine database somewhere.

In saying that a Young Scot card holder does not automatically get an NEC when they reach the age limit but no reason they couldn't.

Can also be used as ID for voting in UK elections.

Interestingly it does NOT require a passport or driving license to apply for, just birth certificate, NHS medical card etc.

Banks don't seem to count it as an accepted form of photo ID, however my father being the obstreperous bugger that he was forced Nationwide to accept it as such when he wanted to open a new account and they wanted to go through the money laundering malarkey.

Pointed out that it was issued on behalf of the Scottish Government therefore it was govt. ID. And by the way he had £600k spread across his existing accounts due to a recent house sale, RBS was next door and did they have the forms available so he could request closure of all his accounts. Funnily enough it suddenly became acceptable.

He didn't have a photo driving license at the time since he hadn't moved house in 30 years, hadn't reached 70 and never had a passport.

I believe their policy at the time only mentioned government issued photo ID rather than being explicit as to what was acceptable so they were hoist on their own petard.

My son is now 15, prior to him starting secondary school they had the visit from the Young Scot Card people to give the talk where they told them about discounts on CDs and stuff. He received his card as he said yes and spoke to mum about it, without me knowing. I looked into it once I heard about it and pointed a few things out.

Once it arrived I telephoned them and was put through to the local council team administrating the card. I mentioned that under GDPR a child under 13 cannot give consent, asked them why none of the details were supplied regarding the potential data collection etc and with out asking the response was we'll just cancel it!!

The numbers on the card were to be a UCRN (unified citizen reference number) to link council, NHS Scotland etc interactions all to one number. Thankfully the SNP government scrapped it, but it has come out after John Swinney's condemnation of the "Brit Card" that his administration is working on a "Scot Card" as well!

No one can do anything these days without someone wanting to track them. Makes me wish we could go back to the mod 80s or very early 90s again when no one knew anything about anyone and interactions were all face to face etc.

As the title suggests the government is trying to talk itself out of the poorly thought of hole it dug itself into.

They can't tell us what problems it will solve, and the ones they have mentioned it won't solve. It will stop the boats because all these illegal migrants that enter the black economy will suddenly stop doing so if they don't have a digital ID - NOT.

From the response to the petition "It will not be compulsory to obtain a digital ID but it will be mandatory for some applications." I can see this will be you want a passport, then you need a digital ID. No ID no passport, no travelling abroad. Of course there is a total lack of information on what what would applications it would be mandatory for.

Private companies will have access to it - will this be just to confirm you have an ID? Of course not, they will be given access to all your information which they will definitely not use in ways they shouldn't or sell it on to the local data brokers

Security - probably more a problem with the government than the private companies because they are so rubbish at it, but it does apply to both. How is the information kept secure and how will the government GUARANTEE nobody will be able to access any information they shouldn't and that the files won't be hacked? After all they have such a stellar record so far.

I can actually see a use for a digital ID and how it could be useful but as soon as the government start using smoke and mirrors I lose any trust. Look you don't need a digital ID unless ytou want to do this....

2.7m signatures, and the government response is just "Fuck you, we're doing it anyway"?

Bye Starmer, it was fun while it lasted. Not.

Yes, that's pretty much exactly the mesage they intend to convey, isn't it! "We know best, we don't need to properly explain ourselves to you plebs so therefore you can fuck off"

Also probably a significant element of them having not actually thought it through, so couldn't explain the details or proper justifications even if they wanted to as they've not made those up yet. It has every appearance of being yet another of Starmer's knee-jerk reactions to try to regain popularity, which in the usual fashion of his attempts at this has backfired badly.

Exactly, problem is Digital ID is all part of Agenda 2030 so no matter what they will try and bring it in. They won't be honest and say why, but make up some utter bollocks to hide that fact.

If it was up to me membership of WEF or any organisation like that would be made illegal for elected representatives and no one would be allowed to be an MP without some life and workplace experience.

If you need one to get a job, it's mandatory, no matter what this numpty says.