Is he a double agent for the far right?
I often come up with a fun nickname for UK leaders - from "Creepy Uncle Boris", through "Sussy Sunak".
I'd like to inaugurate "Stasi Starmer" in memory of this absolutely insane decision.
He is giving free points to Farage like he is... A fecking idiot
No, Fuck Farage vote Greens. Zach Polanski is who you should be supporting!
If my post made anyone think I support Farage, I apologise. Starmer though... He doesn't does he?
I’m pointing out that it’s a bad idea to focus on the worst candidate that opposes Digital IDs while there are others with better politics.
He's a straight up reform plant. Nothing else makes sense at this point.
Nah he's just owned by Palantir like the rest of your government
Defo. All this privacy invading measures are to gather data. Data is the new oil.
Brits: the government has sold London's public squares to private companies so we can't protest there, they are arresting people for waving flags where they can still protest, we are against international human rights courts, but we draw the line at an id document.
That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense for any values any politician claims in public–but if you connect the dots you see a pretty distinctive silhouette.
Handing your information to Peter Thiel and palantir just like the us did
Just signed it. It's over 2.2M now
On one hand, I agree with all the concerns listed in the article. Of course it's all in the implementation. Digital ID doesn't necessarily have to be terribly implemented and a privacy nightmare, but I doubt any current government would implement it any other way.
That said, it makes me pretty grumpy that people are happy enough to have corporations like google, amazon, facebook, et al know everything about them, but somehow a government ID is a bridge too far.
I think it's explained by the fact that governments assert a monopoly on violence, including imprisonment. The apparent risk is higher. You also can't opt out, whereas you (theoretically, if not in practice) can with private services.
And more importantly, it's highly visible, versus buried in a disclosure or hidden on a server. If the information those companies gather were in front of people's faces, they'd be more up in arms about it.
Also the UK gov has has the cyber security track record of an open door with a neon sign saying 'free sensitive material this way' This is basically a giant government backed scheme for mass identity theft.
As is the online safety act. But at least that can be circumvented pretty easily
it makes me pretty grumpy that people are happy enough to have corporations like google, amazon, facebook, et al know everything about them, but somehow a government ID is a bridge too far.
People can make the choice to engage with those companies, but the government want to force the matter. Plus of course I can always just stop interacting with the companies if I decide they have got gone too far. They won't get any more data from me then. But I can't opt out of governmental ID cards.
I don't think it's possible, in 2025, to opt out of engagement with these companies in any practical way.
The federal government already has an abundance of personal information about me. If they issue a digital ID I'm not providing them any additional information.
Whenever someone googles anything, they're providing google with hew, intensely personal, information.
While you, personally, might take digital privacy seriously and leak less than a fishes asshole, we both know that the vast majority of people literally can't take a shit without telling google how well their spouse's new meds are working.
You can theoretically opt out of a great many things, but that doesn't mean the behavior is practically possible.
I don't agree with the digital ID since it has implications to snowball further down road into a tool for a implemented authoritarian surveillance state.
But the fact everyone basically carries a smartphone with personal data that is linked to private corporations is kinda ironic.
Like the government can't have a digital footprint of you but Google, Apple, Samsung etc can.
I'm sure these private companies are the bastions of privacy. They surely won't sell your data or bend over to government subpoenas at the first real threat to their bottom line.
No discussion regarding this digital ID has rwally mentioned this and I find it incredibly concerning.
There should be base line regulation stopping this both at the private and governmental levels. But if the last 5ish years have shown in the world, most people are realistically comfrontable and complacent in all this. At least until the gestapo are at your door., but then it's a week bit too late isn't it.
I have a passport, driving licence in addition to other info necessary for applying for a job eg NI number.
Why do I need an ID? I bet there’d be some charge for it too. No. On principle no. He can get fucked.
Exactly, it's hypocritical AF. The plus sides outlined actually sound fairly logical and the people who are up in arms about this are as bad as everytime the far right cries invisible boogie man. Many digital-only forms of ID already exist. Apple wallet, TIN/SSN, that Covid passport thing, Biometric residence permits.
The whole thing is just being framed as another attack piece on Starmer to make the far right's influence grow. Every liberal who is up in arms over this is complicit too. Don't believe me? Let's check in on how the US is doing after they utilized the same political strategy...
They're not remotely the same and thing claiming that they are is entirely disingenuous.
Many digital-only forms of ID already exist. Apple wallet, TIN/SSN, that Covid passport thing, Biometric residence permits.
All of those are not controlled by the government, cannot be used to track people, or are entirely made up. I don't know what this covid passport thing is.
Also are you even British, you're talking about SSN's, we don't have those.
Britain doing overtime trying to overtake America in the fascism rankings.
Always has. Brits dig fascism for some reason. The accent makes people think that they are “civilized “but the country is filled with angry fashy white people.
It's easy to make this kind of generalisation but in reality we are like any other western country - extremely polarised by social and traditional media and currently vearing towards fascism because of a combination of external manipulation and increasing inequality and misplaced anger about it.
Our population is also quite stratified in terms of race - there are some very multi-cultural cities and towns and there are towns where the population is entirely white and the locals only experience of other cultures is via the TV or speciality restaurants and shops in the next town over (source: grew up in one such place. Remember having conversation with a guy who said "tried an Indian, it was quite nice actually!"). I suppose this is comparable to the US Western and Eastern seaboards Vs "small town America". People who have never met anyone with a different skin pigment are much easier to manipulate into thinking that all different people are here to take our jobs and live off welfare provided by our hard work. Those people are strongly influenced by the right-wing press such as the daily mail who supported the Nazis the last time around too. (Sidenote: that paper's ownership remains with the same family. Never ever open their site and give them ad revenue).
In reality, many cities are multi-cultural, diverse and open these days. The white fash-inclined people are worried that this open and diverse culture might spread to their town. Partly because the political class, backed up by the DM and GBNews and even the 'impartial' BBC tell them to be.
I'd highly recommend watching Adam Curtis' recent documentary series "Shifty" which follows the downfall of Britain's industrial base and disenfranchisement of the working class led by Thatcher and Blair during the 80s and 90s. It is eye opening.
The Labour party is supposed to be our centre-left party but they are copying the US-Dems in trying to appeal to the right who will never vote for them and alienating their base. They ousted their left-wing leader about 8 years ago and installed Starmer who is for sure a plant for the landed gentry/corporate interests.
TL;DR not all of us are fash inclined, not even most of us. If you're reading this and you're new to this country, seek us out and don't lose heart.
I don't get it. What's wrong with digital ID? Most EU countries have digital certificates and/or some sort of a government app you can use as an ID. What's different here?
it’s a slippery slope:
The next government could massively curtail freedom of movement, protest and expression with the tools this government are intent on forging. Remember, they already tried to make porn subject to age checks, and everyone installed a VPN. Want to use a VPN? we’re going to need a digital ID scan please.
Interesting. In other countries digital ID is treated the same as normal ID card. When I'm buying alcohol I can scan my digital ID or just show my card. No one is forcing anyone to only use the digital one. Are there any indications that the plan is to deprecate physical cards?
I’m a risk averse person. I don’t see “in other countries they do X,” rather I think “if this happens and a government gets in whose interests are unaligned with my own, what could they do with this new power I let them have.”
In the case of the UK, the far right is on the rise. Today if a digital ID card is introduced, then probably no one will force me to use it. However in the future that can change.
Let me give you an example: the UK allowed the government to change the law so that it gets to determine who is a terrorist and who isn’t. They don’t need to go to court, or have a judge sign off. They use these powers to silence legitimate protest against a number of issues that inconvenienced the billionaire class.
Imagine attending a protest to call for the government to be held to account for a bad decision it made, and the next day your digital ID no longer allows you to travel to work by train. We are giving them the legal power to do this, if we stand by and do not resist.
Also, I’m lucky enough to be a citizen of the country I live in. Will enforcing some addition “digital proof of citizenship” make the country a better place? Will it make undocumented people decide to leave or simply more desperate/vulnerable? If they get sick, will they be afraid to seek medical care - spreading illness rather than getting treatment.
I get it but I still think it's more about just being against the government than any realistic risk. You already have to show your ID to buy alcohol or enter some places. The government could simply require shop owners to scan the ID with government app. Digital ID is not needed to monitor where each ID is used. And you don't have to show your ID to use public transport. Just having digital ID doesn't mean it will be mandatory to use it everywhere. They can just as easily require normal ID everywhere. The risks you're describing are basically a big stretch. But I get it, you don't trust this government to do anything so this includes digital ID.
You already have to show your ID to buy alcohol or enter some places.
and who cares about that? It's an entirely different situation. the card is not scanned, it is not recorded in a database that you were there. a person just checks it with their eyes.
The government could simply require shop owners to scan the ID with government app.
the point is that it would be a noticeable, suspicious change for more people. but when its dressed as convenience first and then deprecation of "obsolete" "insecure" practices, it is not. then concerns like this can just be handwaved away, that "oh it surely won't happen"
And you don't have to show your ID to use public transport.
in my country you already have to scan your monthly pass, tied to your id. travel information is also persisted for years. they banned paper passes in law.
in my country you already have to scan your monthly pass, tied to your id. travel information is also persisted for years. they banned paper passes in law.
This just confirms my point. Those practices are not tied to digital ID. You can gather the same data without digital ID and having digital ID does not automatically mean data will be gathered. People simply don't want government to do anything because they don't trust it. And this is fine. I was just wandering if digital ID in itself is a bad idea for some reason but I see it's not.
Those practices are not tied to digital ID.
Except that they are, so that they can check whether you are the actual owner of the pass.
having digital ID does not automatically mean data will be gathered.
it is gathered, and that is not a question. a screen shows the bus driver your ID number, because on paper everyone should also show their ID for the driver to check that the numbers match. now in reality that rarely happens because it slows down boarding, but your ID is still registered and tied to your pass. the GDPR document also mentions it.
People simply don't want government to do anything because they don't trust it.
thats a nice distraction to tell for yourself, but the transportation company was not governmentally owned when the law came into effect.
was just wandering if digital ID in itself is a bad idea for some reason but I see it's not.
it is, because it makes connecting already collected information to an exact person much easier and impossible to deny, and because computerized tracking is much less visible than if the bus driver or shop keeper would have to jot down your ID number or take a picture with their phone.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/