Privacy

3095 readers

367 users here now

Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

danielintempesta@programming.dev

BritCard ID Now Mandatory — What Happens if You Refuse? (www.ibtimes.co.uk)

submitted 2 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/privacy@programming.dev

59 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Failure to present a BritCard when required may result in denial of employment, housing, or access to certain services. Employers and landlords will be legally obligated to verify status through the system, and failure to do so may result in fines or penalties.

While enforcement details are still emerging, civil liberties groups warn that the scheme could disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. Those without smartphones, digital literacy, or stable housing may struggle to access or maintain their digital ID, potentially pushing them further into the margins of society.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why would you want a physical ID?

Because the year is 2025 and we have this thing called “the internet” now, where the teeniest, tiniest little failure in implementation, could result in an entire database of PII leaked to the masses. It's hard to leak a physical card.

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Wait you want a physical card with no record of it? Like a deed from the 1800s or something? What?

The government already has plenty of databases with the PII of every person in the UK. This wouldn't change that.

[–] Senal@programming.dev 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The difference is scope and ease of (inevitable) creep.

In isolation, this probably isn't that big a change, as part of a trend though, this is the change that all of what is to come, hinges on.

This is a central point of identity that is now mandatory for a jobs and housing ( + a bunch of other stuff ).

Yes you need some things for a bank account and tax purposes, this isn't different in type, it's different in scope.

Now, given the propensity for "think of the children" wrapping for basically any privacy encroachment they can think up , they can tie it to this, because it's digital it's significantly easier to do that.

Previously they'd have had to think "how can we enforce this bullshit" and would have to factor in the cost of additional verification systems to support their bullshit.

Now they don't.

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You already need some kind of proof of identity to work and housing. This just designates one identifier as the one you have to use. Hardly different.

[–] Senal@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes, as i said, different in scope not type.

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Well that just seems silly. You're ok with an inconvenient ad-hoc collection of mandatory IDs, but not a unified one.

[–] Senal@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago

i'm not particularly enthused about either, but if you'll read my original reply you can find out why i dislike the new one specifically.

hint it's not really because of the id itself