The Illusion of Safety: Why Digital IDs Deserve More Scrutiny

I hadn’t planned on writing about this topic, but in light of the recent government proposal to introduce digital ID’s, and the social chatter that followed, I wanted to put down a few of my views.

The discussions I’ve seen tend to overlook the risks to privacy and personal freedoms, focusing instead on whether digital IDs might actually address migration challenges. When privacy is mentioned, it’s often dismissed with worrying ease.

Let’s set aside, for now, the obvious political motives i.e. the conveniently timed announcement following limited action on migration, the unproven link to border control, and the government’s patchy record in major digital programmes. Even if we extend the olive branch and assume competence, there’s little evidence such a system would achieve its stated purpose or be delivered on schedule.

There’s also the small matter that it wasn’t in Labour’s manifesto or campaign and hasn’t gone through any formal challenge or approval process. How very “democratic,” at a time when safeguarding democracy is everyone’s favourite soundbite.

For the above reasons amongst others, I suspect that this proposal will fail to reach implementation, however am I surprised it’s been put forwards? Not particularly, no. Am I surprised at how willing many seem to be to look past the very obvious intrusions on privacy this represents? Yes, as I’d have expected at the very least events of the recent years to be fresh in people’s minds where digital systems allowed curbs to freedom of movement.

Going into all the things wrong with this policy and its invasion of privacy would take a book so I’ll try and limit it to my core concerns and why I think many people have failed to think through the full implications of such a system being implemented.

The Flawed Logic of ‘I’ve Got Nothing to Hide’

This argument is one I find particularly vexing as I’m never sure if people say it to be antagonistic or genuinely believe it’s a valid argument. To clearly outline my position here so it’s unambiguous; privacy isn’t about concealing wrongdoing, it’s about preserving the freedom to decide what to share, when, and with whom. That freedom should rest with the individual, not the state. The belief that only the guilty need privacy is both flawed and dangerous. Accepting it risks branding anyone who defends privacy as someone with something to hide.

The Dangerous Creep of Digital ID’s Once Implemented

It seems those making the case this is nothing to worry about are failing to consider the second, third and fourth order effects of the proposed system. Tackling illegal immigration might be the initial guise under which this is introduced, and it may even be a legitimately well-meaning intention (I’m not convinced) but the implications go much further than that.

History has shown, in fact within only the past few years that systems implemented by governments can be used and abused to lock people out of society as they see fit. If a digital ID infrastructure were to be implemented, control can be expanded or repurposed under the banner of “public good.” We’ve already seen this during the pandemic, when vaccine passports became temporary gatekeepers to travel, events, and even basic freedoms.

The point was made clear during this period that access to everyday life can be conditional dependent on the decisions of government who will enact with relative ease that which sits within their control.

During the pandemic it required download of the vaccine pass apps however once a digital ID becomes mandatory then you’re already locked in. A simple change to the system can determine as and what you’ll then be granted access to. And if you think this sounds far-fetched, you only need to look at how similar systems are already being used elsewhere.

Lessons of Existing Systems and Abuses

China has well documented integrated systems that form the backbone of their social credit system. They can and have used this to determine who has access to banking and travel amongst other basic rights. The UK may not be China but it’s not technology that discriminates but the people controlling it. Canada isn’t China either, yet it took little hesitation for them to lock truckers out of their bank accounts when they dared to challenge authority.

Power distorts judgement, and history shows that few resist the temptation to use it once they have it.

You may feel comfortable now because the current government and power structure within the UK gives you little to be concerned about however what can be used by those you agree with can be used by those you disagree with in future. Even if you’re unaffiliated with any political party if and when the time comes to object because the real impact of a digital ID system has hit home it’s too late.

We Already Live on the Internet Through Socials

It’s not lost on me that we live in an age where the majority of the internet-connected population share increasing amounts of data and their lives online. Each to their own and if you want to share everything about your daily interactions and feelings with the population of TikTok, X or any other platform then that’s your choice. That’s the point though, you have a choice. Some things you share may be difficult to get back once they’re out there but it was still bound by a personal choice in the first place.

For those who think it’s clever to counter privacy concerns by saying we already live online, the concept of choice and discretion in personal disclosure seems to escape them.

A digital ID by contrast to what you share on social platforms, isn’t a voluntary expression, it’s a legal requirement. Once implemented, participation won’t be optional, and non-compliance won’t come without its consequences.

When privacy becomes conditional on government approval and permission, the concept of individual sovereignty has eroded. What is introduced as a system to ‘combat illegal migration’ can quietly evolve into one of coercion. An invisible, digital chain dressed up as progress, left lingering under the surface until it needs to be used and abused.

Final Reflections (For Now…)

Many will accept the introduction of a Digital ID system or at least not push back on it because they see the potential conveniences of it or don’t envision it impacting them negatively. This is to miss the forest from the trees for the reasons outlined above and to overlook the fact that freedoms once traded away are rarely able to be retrieved without cost.

Will the introduction of a digital ID system end the right to privacy overnight? No. Will it represent the inflection point when the message was sent loud and clear that as a society, we don’t particularly care about privacy? In my opinion, yes.

It’s down to you what side of the coin you fall on for this argument, however, be careful not to reach quick conclusions without thinking through the implications.

This isn’t about whether you have something to hide. It’s about preserving the right to decide what you reveal, to whom, and when, before that choice is no longer yours to make.