Introduction
In September 2024, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced plans to introduce a national digital ID scheme. This system would store personal information—such as name, date of birth, nationality, and residency status—on a virtual ID on personal devices, aiming to streamline identity verification for work and life. However, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), alongside 12 UK-based civil society organizations, has raised serious concerns. In December 2024, a joint letter urged MPs to reject the proposal, backed by a petition of 2.9 million signatures. Despite this, the government launched a consultation titled ‘Making public services work for you with your digital identity’. EFF submitted comments focusing on six critical issues. This guide walks you through each issue, providing a framework for your own response or advocacy. Follow these steps to understand the risks and articulate a powerful case against a mandatory digital ID.
What You Need
- A copy of the UK government’s consultation document (available from the official website)
- Basic understanding of digital identity systems and terminology
- Access to research on privacy, security, and discrimination (e.g., EFF reports, UK civil society briefs)
- Time to read and analyze the six issues outlined below
- Pen and paper (or a document editor) to draft your response
- Optional: contacts in civil society organizations for collaboration
Step-by-Step Guide
Step 1: Recognize Mission Creep
Mission creep occurs when a digital ID system, initially limited to specific purposes, expands over time to control access to more services. In your submission, highlight how the UK’s proposed scheme could begin as a simple identity verification tool but evolve into a mandatory key for healthcare, banking, or even social media. Use examples from other countries (e.g., India’s Aadhaar) where the original scope widened without proper oversight. Argue that any guarantees of limited use are fragile and easily reversed by future legislation.
Step 2: Protect Privacy Rights
Digital IDs inherently collect and centralize sensitive personal data. In your response, emphasize that even with strong safeguards, the system infringes on privacy rights. The government would know exactly when and where you use your ID, creating a detailed surveillance profile. Point out that the UK’s own data protection standards (e.g., GDPR) could be undermined. Recommend alternatives like decentralized, self-sovereign identity models that minimize data sharing.
Step 3: Assess Security Risks
A single national database becomes an attractive target for hackers. Step 3 involves detailing serious security risks: data breaches, identity theft, and unauthorized access. In your submission, cite recent cyberattacks on government systems (e.g., the 2023 UK electoral register breach) as evidence that no system is impenetrable. Demand rigorous security audits and transparency, but also note that no amount of security can eliminate the risk of a catastrophic failure.
Step 4: Challenge Inaccurate Technologies
The government may rely on unproven or biased technologies like facial recognition or blockchain. In this step, challenge the reliance on inaccurate technologies. For example, facial recognition has higher error rates for people of color and women. Similarly, blockchain-based systems can be slow, energy-intensive, and prone to bugs. Your response should insist on independent testing and reject any system built on unverified tech.
Step 5: Fight Discrimination and Exclusion
Mandatory digital IDs disproportionately harm marginalized groups: the homeless, elderly, low-income individuals, or those without smartphones. In Step 5, explain how the scheme creates discrimination and exclusion. For instance, people without internet access would be locked out of essential services. Propose that the government must provide offline, analog alternatives that are equally accessible, and make clear that digital-only systems are inherently unjust.
Step 6: Address Power Imbalances
The core problem is that a digital ID shifts power from individuals to the state, allowing the government to decide who can access services. This deepening of entrenched power imbalances is the final issue. In your words, describe the system as a “key to opening or closing doors” to essential life experiences. Argue that no one should be coerced—technically or socially—into a digital system to participate fully in public life. Conclude that the only ethical solution is to abandon the proposal entirely.
Step 7: Submit Your Concerns
After addressing each issue, compile your submission. Use clear, evidence-based arguments referencing the six points above. Send it to the UK government’s consultation portal before the deadline. Also share it with civil society partners (e.g., Open Rights Group, Liberty) to amplify your voice. Remember that even powerful recommendations cannot fix a fundamentally flawed system.
Tips for an Effective Response
- Keep it concise: Focus on the six issues—don’t dilute your message with minor points.
- Use real-world examples: Refer to failed digital ID schemes (e.g., Australia’s My Health Record, Canada’s Phoenix) to strengthen your argument.
- Emphasize the human impact: Share stories of how discrimination or exclusion would affect real people.
- Avoid technical jargon—write for a general audience, but include references for experts.
- Call for a halt: The strongest position is that the entire project should be cancelled, not just reformed.
- Collaborate: Join forces with other organizations to submit a joint letter for greater impact.
- Stay updated: Follow EFF’s ongoing work on digital ID for future developments and actions.