Poll: DIGITAL ID - It's coming *** NO GENERAL POLITICS TALK - ONE AND ONLY WARNING ***

[Donnie Fisher]

Or are you saying that the gov can't track devices if you don't want them to, while also saying they can track devices?

I think there needs to be a little clarity around that, as there are 2 different things being discussed in that sentence.

Phone operating systems and their apps generally wont share out locations by request unless the phone user grants that. So if 'mr gov' or similar asks the phone, the phone is not likely to give out the info. i.e. cant track.

However, the phone does login to the network providers and to do so generally has to provide its IDs to the network provider ( phone number, sim number, imei etc ) which is recorded and can be queried (through appropriate warrants / justifications / approvals) by 'mr gov' or similar parties. So the network can log which device, which mast, and therefor rough location. whilst the phone isn't giving out specific information of its location, it can be inferred. i.e. can track.

So, 'mr gov' cant track in some regards, and can track in others. It can be both.

 

[p1RATE]

What's funny @Gray2233?

It's almost like I have used the thing between my ears before smashing out a 'we're all doomed' response unlike most people in this thread.

Tbf you have done nothing but knock back every legitimate argument that has been made in this thread.

When you have every civil liberties advocates warning of the many dangers of this and intent of extended scope, it seems more like you have your ears covered rather than using what's in-between them.

 

[Gray2233]

I think there needs to be a little clarity around that, as there are 2 different things being discussed in that sentence.

Phone operating systems and their apps generally wont share out locations by request unless the phone user grants that. So if 'mr gov' or similar asks the phone, the phone is not likely to give out the info. i.e. cant track.

However, the phone does login to the network providers and to do so generally has to provide its IDs to the network provider ( phone number, sim number, imei etc ) which is recorded and can be queried (through appropriate warrants / justifications / approvals) by 'mr gov' or similar parties. So the network can log which device, which mast, and therefor rough location. whilst the phone isn't giving out specific information of its location, it can be inferred. i.e. can track.

So, 'mr gov' cant track in some regards, and can track in others. It can be both.

That by and large is the problem, it can be both and by introducing a system like Digital ID it will inherently become one and the same. It might not happen with this iteration of Government but it absolutely will down the line, and I have no desire to deal with how any potential UK government body might apply that.

There's been cases of people being arrested for protesting based on their local data, which isn't a topic I'll climb into bed with overly so but I feel it's a valid point. The actual APP could very well allow pin-point location, and opting out might not matter depending on the way laws or viewed currently let alone future. Anyone that's used Uber for taxi requests, you can almost pin-point find a person with ease as an opt in. I don't believe for a moment it will remain an opt in, much like I don't like the idea that "slippery-slope" is a fallacy, it's more often than not the opposite with political conditions.

There's a lot more than phone pings going on now, satellites are being launched left and right and both work together very well as is evidenced by the above.

I can even see where my Tesco delivery driver is on a real time map, hell I can with Iceland (the freezer shop).

 

[Donnie Fisher]

I don't see how a personal digital ID could/would inherently become the same as device ID ... I think they'll always be distinctly different ID's.

Yes - they could be related through association to each other, but not inherently the same ID.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

May I ask what your working background is?

I'm really not trying to employ some logical fallacy here or be mean, but you absolutely do not come across as someone with any background in network or data security, let alone anyone that has had to deal with government built online systems.

Also, the "conspiracy theory" is not a theory: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czjvrgd48evo

Or are you saying that the gov can't track devices if you don't want them to, while also saying they can track devices?

May I ask why your background? You don’t seem to have a good grasp about data protection legislation and all the interlinking pieces of legislation that interact with it. See we can both play those games.

You’re going to have to be more specific about what theory you are referring to.

The article clearly articulates a rationale as to why there is an issue around minors which needs to be thought about.

If you want the system to be mandatory for everyone who gets a job, you need to think about how you are going to deal with minors because in a news flash to no one, minors also work.

As for tracking phones, your suggestion is the digital ID app is going to be used for mass surveillance location tracking is a conspiracy theory and you know it.

Like I said, if they actually wanted to track your location, they don’t need you to have some digitalID app on your phone to do it.

Like I also said, with thanks to Apple of all companies, location sharing with apps is now sandboxed per app and off by default on all major platforms and isn’t shared without your explicit consent.

 

[Gray2233]

May I ask why your background? You don’t seem to have a good grasp about data protection legislation and all the interlinking pieces of legislation that interact with it. See we can both play those games.

You’re going to have to be more specific about what theory you are referring to.

The article clearly articulates a rationale as to why there is an issue around minors which needs to be thought about.

If you want the system to be mandatory for everyone who gets a job, you need to think about how you are going to deal with minors because in a news flash to no one, minors also work.

As for tracking phones, your suggestion is the digital ID app is going to be used for mass surveillance location tracking is a conspiracy theory and you know it.

Like I said, if they actually wanted to track your location, they don’t need you to have some digitalID app on your phone to do it.

Like I also said, with thanks to Apple of all companies, location sharing with apps is now sandboxed per app and off by default on all major platforms and isn’t shared without your explicit consent.

You've told on yourself enough tonight, I don't need to do anymore work.

Have a good evening bud.

"NO YOU!"

Also, minors work? Good lord.

 

[TrojanWhore]

woosh, hard to spot these days

All good, I've added a emoji to make it more obvious I'd like to think I'm overreacting, but I'm legitimately quite worried about authoritarian overreach with our currnet gvnm... I think responding to a petition with 3M sigs with "Oh well, we're gonna do it anyway" is (to put it lighty) unacceptable

 

[Nasher]

I don't see how a personal digital ID could/would inherently become the same as device ID ... I think they'll always be distinctly different ID's.

Yes - they could be related through association to each other, but not inherently the same ID.

It's likely using certificates of some kind, so could easily be linked to devices and other accounts as well.

That's sort of how China's system already works. They can be denied travel tickets and all sorts.

 

[visibleman]

For their intended goals and what has been talked of as to future trajectory it leans that way (Starmer's talk of it being embedded in everyday life, etc.), unlike other forms of ID it is also easier for the scope to creep that way especially under an unscrupulous government.

I think we're all old enough to know that what the Government says and what is actually delivered are vastly different. And given there's a high chance this will still be in the planning stages when the next election rolls around, i'll reserve judgement until there's something a bit more concrete rather than listen to the fearmongering.

As someone else said, "unscrupulous government" could be all of them.

You also ignored the fact said ID will be on a potentially mandatory wireless device such as a smart phone, that will track where you are at any given time, including kids if they get their way.

Have you got any sources that specifically state the introduction of Digital ID will result in the/additional tracking of citizens through their devices/smartphones outside of what's currently available to Governments (ie - cellular, spyware etc)?

Discord recently had one and that's one of the most major social media platforms online...

FYI, it wasn't directly Discord's own platform(s) that was breached but rather Zendesk, which they used for customer services and that's where the ID's, that some customers sent in for verification, where stored.

You guys literally don't have .gov account? Wow, the delusion runs deep.

I thought the generation of people on this forum are past the, internet/digital is scary trope.

There's definitely a few in here that are scared of their own shadow and it's surprising they manage to get up in the mornings

 

[helpimcrap]

*Puts out his arm and waits for the inevitable chip implant which will override my own thoughts and allow Tony Blair to control me.

 

[Firestar_3x]

*Puts out his arm and waits for the inevitable chip implant which will override my own thoughts and allow Tony Blair to control me.

Some fantasies are probably best kept to yourself.

 

[mattyg]

*Puts out his arm and waits for the inevitable chip implant which will override my own thoughts and allow Tony Blair to control me.

Haven't millions of us already had that... Well the Bill Gates version.

 

[mattyg]

You can get by just fine without all of your information being accessible online currently, I know numerous people who do not drive and have never travelled abroad who work without using any of the .gov websites, it's a very strange argument.

I think thats the point he's making, The information is there, Just because those people haven't created an account to access it doesn't mean it doesn't already exist.

If they have a bank account. HMRC know about them
If thyeve paid TAX and NI then ditto
If theyve had a DR's Appointment etc etc

 

[TrojanWhore]

Yeah, it's the scope creep I'm worried about....

The security is my main concern, it's gonna get hacked/leaked at some point (sooner rather than later, as it's a bigger target...)

In broadly SQL terms:
I'm ok with INNER JOIN (or at least as far as they already exist)

I'm more worrired about the [LEFT/RIGHT/FULL/UNION] scenario (that doesn't fully make sense.. I'm not a DBA, I just muddle my way along!)

 

[KillBoY_UK]

If it was just a digital ID, I might be able to live with it. But once everything gets linked to it, that’s a different story. Even ignoring the power and slippery-slope issues of centralisation, having all that data in one place is basically begging to be hacked. It’s not a question of if — it’s when. And what happens if your phone gets stolen?

 

[darkgen]

If it was just a digital ID, I might be able to live with it. But once everything gets linked to it, that’s a different story. Even ignoring the power and slippery-slope issues of centralisation, having all that data in one place is basically begging to be hacked. It’s not a question of if — it’s when. And what happens if your phone gets stolen?

If this were limited to state services (HMRC, NHS, DWP, State welfare, Home Office) with proper controls in place to secure the data fully, and effective mitigations implemented to keep these databases strictly separate, with strong encryption, authentication, and strict access controls, etc., I suspect that a significant amount of this data is already shared, probably with inadequate controls in place, across outdated and disparate systems.

I agree; I would have little trust that future UK governments would not attempt to introduce and expand these systems into our private, social, and financial lives.

 

[visibleman]

The security is my main concern, it's gonna get hacked/leaked at some point (sooner rather than later, as it's a bigger target...)

It's likely the platform behind it will be pulling in data from other .Gov services, so it'll be as secure, or as unsecure, as existing platforms/services. And any breaches of our data so far tend to be via third-parties, like Synnovis, rather than directly .Gov.

It will be interesting to see what data ends up being tied to Digital ID and if there's additional data to captured/added, like pub keys etc.

Yeah, it's the scope creep I'm worried about....

It's a concern but it's also a Government project; what actually gets delivered is a nth of what's proposed - just look at HS2.

IMO, i'll be surprised if Digital ID happens, certainly within this Government.

 

[Emlyn_Dewar]

IMO, i'll be surprised if Digital ID happens, certainly within this Government.

We just need to hope it gets scrapped, when Labour are gone. Which will hopefully be sooner, rather than later.
Chances of that are next to none though. Every government wants this much power. It’s out of the bag now, so probably nothing the people can do.

 

[randomuser69]

Digital ID has been around for ages. (not gov based). I don't mind it but what is a concern is what will tie into it and how much data will tie into it.

 

[Malevolence]

Security issues is a huge concern, but what happens when the entire thing gets DDoS'd into oblivion because down because some nefarious actor has unleashed a bot army?