AIBU to think that passports are now UK ID cards by the back door?

[bellalula]

My eldest dd turned sixteen last year, and ever since she's had difficultly proving her identity for all sorts of things. She often uses the train to get home from college. At 16 they charge adult fares (fair enough). Tried to get her a young persons railcard for discounted fares, but you need photo id to get a railcard. They'll accept a passport or a driving licence. DD doesn't have either, she's never travelled abroad, and not intending to in the near future, so no travel need for a passport. She isn't old enough to drive a car, so no need for a driving licence either. And if she could drive, she probably wouldn't need a railcard anyway!

So we looked at getting her a provisional driving licence early, purely so she could get a railcard. You near enough need a passport to get a driving licence these days though, can't complete the application online without one, the only other way to to it is by posting off paper copies of documentation (original birth certificate, verified photo etc).

My own passport expired over 20 years ago, and I had to upgrade my paper driving licence 10 years ago, so I do have that as photo id for myself. That does seem to be accepted by most places. There's an open day at the nearby military base coming up this summer, my dc would love it. You have to apply for tickets in advance, and I think they do a draw because it's always over subscribed. But, for security purposes, they require passports as proof of identity and nationality for everyone over 16. It's not clear if they'll accept my 30 year old, expired passport, and my dd won't be able to get in at all.

DD got herself a part time waitressing job last year. Because she was under 16 they would accept birth certificate as id luckily. If she'd started there after turning 16 she'd have needed passport or driving licence.

So if you don't drive and don't travel abroad, you still have to buy a passport or driving licence just to be able to live and work in the UK? I mean it's basically compulsory, yet we're being charged for it as well.

It’s a good job we don’t all carry round a digital device which is capable of tracking our every move, our spending habits, our relationships, our interests, hobbies, income….

something that we keep all the minutiae of our lives, calendars, address books, photos, bank accounts…

oh wait…

you really think they need digital id cards to do all that when we already voluntarily carry round a mini computer which holds all our information and more 😂

And that they too would disadvantage those with less money, since there's not a chance in hell the state would provide them free and nobody has the slightest basis to assume they'd be cheaper than passports.

They particularly wouldn't be cheaper than the provisional driving licences that the large majority of the adult population can access. Albeit I realise that wouldn't work for OPs 16 year old DD.

Off the top of my head, this year alone I’ve had to give photo ID to an estate agent for AML, and I had to provide photo ID to Vinted this week to keep buying on their app. The need for it pops up in all sorts of strange places.

Likewise I don’t understand the frothing about national ID, most G20 countries have them.

It's the compulsory part people usually have an issue with, which most G20 countries we'd actually want to emulate don't have. Of the compulsory ones, not sure most people would regard China or Saudi Arabia as a particularly aspirational model.

France and Germany both have compulsory. cards, along with other EU states.

Even Australia has a de facto ID card in their Medicare card - issued at birth, no card no healthcare.

It’s the British exceptionalism that puzzles me.

In a way we already have compulsory ID though.

unless you buy into the magna carta freeman of the land crap we are all registered and issued with compulsory ID at birth. We have to register our addresses, also information that ID’s is.

you can’t get anywhere without a birth cert or a council tax bill and the ability to prove who you are. You can’t work paye without a national ID number.

all we’re doing is taking that compulsory information we provide and putting it into a card format.

I thought it's compulsory in most of the EU?

The EU is a quite different group to the G20, with only a minority of either group being in the other. And ID cards aren't actually compulsory in France. They do need a government ID but it doesn't have to be an ID card, so for example if you already have a passport you can use that.

It can't be exceptionalism for British people not to want compulsory ID cards, because so many other countries don't require them.

Which would be fine if people were only ever proposing them to be an option, another way to prove your identity if for whatever reason you don't have a passport or provisional/full driving licence. The problem is, some people want them to be compulsory. They'd never solve the problems supporters think they would, and would just be another layer of expense.

I support a national ID card.
I also think your dd should have a passport. The world is on the brink of war. Papers matter.

Yes, but there are lots of G20 countries (both as individuals and EU members) who don't have compulsory ID cards. I don't think the G20 is a particularly relevant example given that so many of the societies are completely different to ours. Am guessing the poster was probably thinking of individual member states rather than those comprising the African Union which is a member, but even then, why would we want the Chinese system?

The key word in your post is "voluntarily". Yes, I am well aware that our phones store a lot about us, and that in theory, the government can access it, but it's very difficult. Boris Johnson was eventually forced to surrender the Whatsapp messages for the inquiry, but he fought tooth and nail, and no doubt this added to the cost of the inquiry (our money). At the moment, there are still some fragile checks and balances between the state, and our data; as fragile as the "democracy" we are told we live in.

With a compulsory digital ID, I think there would be far fewer of these checks and balances, and that a government could access everything about us far more easily, and use it to control our behaviour. One government might do it with perfectly good intentions, persuading the public that it's all for the best... and then a future totalitarian dictatorship would have the infrastructure in place, all ready for them. We've seen how easily Trump can dismantle checks and balances.

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will, water off a duck's back. We "conspiracy theorists" were proved right about quite a few things in 2020. I make no apology for my views on this at all. And I do believe that if digital ID had already been in place before 2020, especially if combined with a cashless society, the government may well have used it to enforce lockdown all the more, to monitor our purchases, and the "barcode scanning" which we did actually have when we went anywhere would almost certainly have been linked to digital ID. And I do foresee many other things that could happen if we are not sceptical of government intrusion into our lives: e.g Alexa-like devices in our homes, not compulsory, but being the only way to access the internet, which by then, would be impossible to live without, and these devices would monitor us, and speak government propaganda, whether we want to hear it or not. Yes, I know, our smartphones monitor us all the time; but at the moment, there is still a middleman between us and the state. It might sound crazy and extremely far-fetched to you, but I think it could happen. Computers used to be our servants: they did what we told them, no more, no less. Now, they run our lives: updating while our backs are turned, constantly trying to sell us things: as I write, an advert is flashing at me from the side, trying to get my attention. Yes, in theory, all these things are voluntary; one way to silence the adverts is to pay, which makes us all the more enslaved. But I do think that sooner or later, the option of not having a smartphone, paying cash, not having to check in everywhere we go may no longer be there, if we let it slip away.

Also worth pointing out that you can turn a smartphone off, or leave it somewhere you aren't. This doesn't affect some of the things you mentioned, but it's obviously relevant to lockdown.

And for an example of how Big Tech can go very, very wrong, you only have to look at the Post Office scandal, which should serve as as extremely loud warning to us all. While that's not strictly a government scandal, and indeed the government can claim they "saved the day" by stepping in to quash the convictions, it could easily have happened with (say) the Covid app. The government could have been using faulty software, known about the faults and covered it up, like the PO chief executives did; those same execs are pocketing massive bonuses, are not in prison, and probably never will be. The government could even now still be fining people on the basis of faulty software. (And some people are still being pursued by the courts for Covid fines, which I think should all have been quashed after Partygate.)

Something that's not often mentioned about the Post Office scandal is that the police and the CPS were bypassed, because of an ancient right by the Post Office to prosecute privately: two checks and balances gone just like that.

The ordinary people, i.e. the postmasters, were sent to prison on the basis of "computer says no", and nothing else. None of the checks and balances in our so-called democracy could save them from being bullied into prison. Some of them are now dead. They lost their jobs and livelihoods, they had their lives ruined, and the "compensation" which some of them have been paid will barely touch the sides of the damage that was caused to them. This should be sounding extremely loud warning bells about what can happen when big tech and government overlap. It has not gone unnoticed that the government making legislation especially to quash the convictions was itself a highly unprecedented step, which did raise many eyebrows. Although that one was benevolent, it does show how easily any government can bypass due process when it suits them. The scandal is far from over, and the fact that it took a TV drama to really bring it to the public's attention speaks volumes.

Think carefully, before trusting big tech, especially when used by government. Abuse of process can, and does happen.

In the EU, EEA and Switzerland, possession of ID cards are compulsory in 15, voluntary in 10 and semi-compulsory in 5 (if you don't have an ID card you must have some other form of official ID).

15 or 18 seem the common ages to be able to get a card or to have to possess a card.

Perhaps the last, mixed system, would suit in the UK. If you don't want an ID card, OK but you'll need a passport and/or driving licence instead.

Suppose also that the government had used Horizon software to process TV licences. (Maybe it does?) Think about it. Thousands of people imprisoned on the basis of "computer says no". The irony is that prisoners spend a lot of time watching TV.

And I think that TV licencing is another institution which has the right to prosecute privately. After all, it used to be that you'd go to the Post Office to buy a TV licence.

Just get a passport. It’s not worth the hassle and spread over 10 years it’s a fairly inexpensive way to not have all these other issues.

Personally I have no problem with everyone being given a national ID card and using it to prove your eligibility to vote, work, open a bank account, access the NHS, etc.

What I would have a problem with is anyone being able to ask for it "on demand" in particular the police as I simply wouldn't trust them to not abuse their powers to do so.

I agree. It's not a new phenomenon & works really well elsewhere

This.

It only works out about £10 a year. She is 16 so, even if she hasn't travelled much yet, there is surely high odds she will in the next ten years.

BTW I think it highly unlikely that your 30 year old expired passport will be much use in proving your ID!

On healthcare specifically, worth pointing out that an ID card isn't necessarily going to tell the NHS whether a person is ordinarily resident and thus entitled to full free care. We would still need checks, as happens now at least in theory, so it's another example of something that would be another layer of bureaucracy without removing the need for systems we already have.

In France you need a separate social security card, the Carte Vitale, prove eligibility for healthcare.

Similarly in Germany you need a separate physical electronic health insurance card to show that you're in the health insurance system, the Gesundheitskarte.

It's legal in Germany to have a passport but not an ID card. However you then have no way to prove your address. A driving licence isn't ID and is only valid together with a passport or ID card.

Potentially we'd need something similar here if people wanted a card to replace the current system of NHS Trusts employing staff to do their own checks. It would have to provide for ongoing assessment, because a person could be ordinarily resident one year then not the next. One can be ordinarily resident without working or claiming benefits too, so it wouldn't be a question of 'just' sharing HMRC or DWP data- I say that in full acknowledgment that we would no doubt massively overcomplicate that even if it was.

Govt are planning to imminently pass legislation that means a Citizen card in digital form can be used to verify age for alcohol / entry to bars and clubs. A Citizen / PASS Card is the only photo ID other than a drivers licence and passport that's currently in scope of the draft legislation.

The data is encrypted. It's not held by the digital provider [eg Post Office EasyID, Yoti], it's verified as authentic with the government agency through the application when you load it up. Government are in the process of creating their own app, that's what all the controversy is about.