Technology

• At their worst, digital ID systems can enable population-wide surveillance; infringe on civil liberties; monitor, predict or influence individuals’ decisions; identify individuals or groups for targeted interventions; and facilitate the tracking, persecution, or differential treatment of marginalised groups.
• There is little evidence to support the government’s claim that digital ID would deter illegal immigration or employment fraud, and many good reasons to believe that mandatory digital ID would burden law-abiding citizens and businesses.
• No matter what is promised at the outset, once in place, a digital ID system is highly likely to be used beyond its initial stated purposes. The government is already considering proposals that would require digital ID for right-to-work and right-to-rent checks. Other reporting suggests that an option under consideration would expand further into everyday interactions such as voting online, signing contracts, paying bills and shopping.
• There are serious doubts about the government’s ability to run an effective and efficient digital ID scheme and prevent against the system failures and inaccuracies that have plagued the eVisa system. There is also significant doubt about the government’s ability to protect the vast amounts of personal data collected in a digital ID scheme – a point which 63% of respondents polled said they were concerned about.
• Far from being a backwards outlier, the UK is in good company with countries that have inherited its legal systems such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in consistently rejecting mandatory ID systems.